The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a 42-year-old attempt-to-murder appeal on merits despite the absence of the absconding accused-appellant. The Court held that it was not bound to wait perpetually until she was traced and produced before the Court. A bench of Justice Vani Ranjan Agrawal was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed in 1982 by the absconding accused, Phulmati, against the Trial Court’s judgment of the same year convicting her under Section 307 IPC and sentencing her to four years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Absconding After Bail
After being granted bail on July 6, 1982, Phulmati had been at large since, despite various attempts to locate her. Initially, bailable warrants were issued in 2007 and again in 2013, but she remained untraceable. In 2013, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were initiated, followed by proceedings under Section 446 CrPC against her sureties in 2014. Even in 2024, despite “severe efforts,” the relevant bail bonds could not be traced, and notices could not be issued to the sureties.
Phulmati’s non-appearance was seen as an abuse of the liberty granted to her on bail. Despite being served non-bailable warrants and undergoing proceedings under Section 82 CrPC, she showed no intention of appearing before the Court, leading the Court to observe that she was “not interested in disposal of this appeal”.
Court’s Stance on Perennial Wait
The Court questioned whether it should continue to adjourn the hearing of the appeal indefinitely, waiting for the accused-appellant to be found and produced before it. It relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, which laid out six propositions for such cases. One of the key points was that courts are not bound to adjourn cases due to the absence of the appellant or counsel; they can examine appeals on their merits.
The Supreme Court also ruled that courts may dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court. Applying this legal position, the Allahabad High Court decided to examine Phulmati’s appeal on its merits despite her absence.
Related: Allahabad HC Quashes Gang’s Bail Chart Approval
Merits of the Case
Upon examining the trial court record, the Allahabad High Court found the prosecution witnesses reliable and the complainant’s version of events supported. The Court noted significant injuries on Govindi Devi, including a wrist fracture, which were consistent with a fall into a well. The prosecution case was that Govindi Devi had mortgaged her jewellery through Phulmati at a jeweller’s shop, and later, Phulmati pushed her into a well with the intention of robbing her and killing her.
The prosecution examined several witnesses, including Govindi Devi, eyewitnesses, the jeweller, and the investigating officer. The medical evidence confirmed the serious injuries, corroborating the fall into the well. The trial court had convicted Phulmati to four years’ rigorous imprisonment based on this evidence.
The High Court, after considering all the facts, found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It upheld the trial court’s decision, concluding that Phulmati’s appeal lacked merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed her appeal, upholding her conviction and sentence.
The Allahabad High Court thus brought to a close a 42-year-old criminal appeal, demonstrating its commitment to ensuring justice is served even when the accused remains at large.