Can't Wait Perennially: Allahabad High Court Rejects Absconding Accused's 1982 Attempt-To-Murder Appeal On Merits In Her Absence
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a 42-year-old attempt-to-murder appeal on merits despite the absence of the absconding accused-appellant while holding that it was not bound to wait perennially 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.
In its order passed on August 11, the High Court noted that Appellant-Phulmati had been granted bail by the Court on July 6, 1982, while admitting the appeal and had been "ever since then, enjoying the liberty of bail".
However, the record showed that she subsequently failed to appear before the Court. Bailable warrants were issued in 2007 and again in 2013.
After reports that she could not be found at her given address, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC were initiated in 2013. Proceedings under Section 446 CrPC were subsequently issued against her sureties in 2014.
The Court further noted that even in 2024, despite "severe efforts", the relevant bail bonds could not be traced and notices could not be issued to the sureties.
Taking into account these circumstances, the Court observed:
"I do not find any prospect of the accused-appellant- Srimati Phulmati, who is absconding, being traced out and produced before this Court".
It further noted that the accused was "not interested in disposal of this appeal and has abused the liberty of bail" by failing to appear despite non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Section 82 CrPC.
Against this backdrop, the Court posed the central question as to "whether this Court is bound to wait perennially for the accused-appellant till the accused-appellant are searched, if at all, and produced before us and keep on adjourning the hearing of this appeal".
The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013), which laid down six propositions for such cases.
Among other things, the Supreme Court had held that a High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining its merits, but that the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if the appellant or counsel is absent.
The Top Court had ruled that the Court may adjourn as a matter of prudence or indulgence, but is not bound to do so. It may also dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court.
Applying that legal position to the present matter, the Allahabad High Court concluded thus:
"…in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga (supra), I proceed to examine this appeal on merits qua appellant- Srimati Phulmati…"
The Court proceeded with the matter on the merits with the assistance of the State counsel, after perusing the trial court record and hearing the learned AGA, and ultimately rejected the appeal.
Background of the case
The prosecution case was that complainant Govindi Devi had mortgaged her jewellery through Accused-Phulmati at a jeweller's shop for Rs.500. After the jewellery was redeemed, the two women were returning home when the accused allegedly asked complainant to sit near a well.
According to the prosecution, the accused then pushed the complainant into the well with the intention of robbing her money/jewellery and killing her. Complainant sustained injuries but managed to hold onto the wall of the well and raised an alarm, following which bystanders rescued her.
The prosecution examined several witnesses, including the complainant, eyewitnesses, the jeweller and the investigating officer. The medical evidence confirmed serious injuries, including a fracture of the left radius/wrist, consistent with the fall into the well.
The trial court had convicted Accused-Phulmati to four years' rigorous imprisonment. Challenging her conviction, she moved the High Court.
After examining the evidence on the merits, the High Court found the independent prosecution witnesses reliable and noted that they had no connection with the complainant and bore no enmity towards the accused-appellant. The complainant had also fully supported the prosecution's version.
The Court noted that there was no circumstance indicating any deliberate attempt to falsely implicate the accused while allowing the real culprit to go free.
It ultimately found that the trial judge had delivered a "well-reasoned and detailed judgment", properly scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence and facts on record. The conviction under Section 307 IPC and the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment were consequently upheld.
The High Court also directed the trial court to leave no stone unturned to ensure the appellant's arrest so that she could serve the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Case Title - Phulmati vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 660
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 660