(J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Ummed Devi ______________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Rajasthan and Another ____________________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4090-4091 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 14359-14360 of 2026)§, decided on August 25, 2026
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was delayed by 19 days and there was no application to condone the delay.
4. The criminal appeal, from an order of acquittal, is by the mother of the victim. The allegation was also of dowry demand and harassment leading to death.
5. True that the appeal should have been accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, but the Constitutional Courts should also be alive to the travails of a litigant and if the legal assistance is not adequate, it has a duty to provide quality legal assistance to the litigants, whether it be a victim or an accused. We also notice that none appeared for the appellant, when the matter was posted before Court, then an Amicus or an Advocate from the Legal Services Authority should have been appointed.
6. In the totality of the circumstances as also considering the minimal delay occasioned, we are of the opinion that the High Court should hear the matter on merits.
7. We set aside the order of the High Court and restore the appeal to its files. We request the High Court to hear the matter on its merits.
8. The appeals are allowed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
§ 2026 INSC 931
