Court Emphasizes Duty to Decide Merits and Rejects Perpetual Adjournment in Absence of Appellant, Directs Trial Court to Ensure Arrest and Execution of Sentence
In a significant judgment delivered on August 11, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided by Justice Vani Ranjan Agrawal, dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Srimati Phulmati challenging her conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempt to murder. The Court upheld the trial court's decision sentencing her to four years of rigorous imprisonment, relying on credible eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and documentary proof.
The case dates back to 1980, when the complainant, Govindi Devi, had mortgaged her jewellery through Srimati Phulmati. After redeeming the jewellery, Phulmati allegedly pushed Govindi Devi into a well near the Leprosy hospital with intent to murder and rob her. The victim sustained serious injuries, including a fracture to her left wrist, which were medically confirmed. Multiple independent witnesses, including bystanders who rescued the victim, corroborated the prosecution's version of events.
Despite several attempts by the Court to secure the presence of the appellant over the decades - including issuance of bailable warrants and processes under Sections 82, 83, and 446 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) - Srimati Phulmati remained absconding and untraceable. The Court noted that the appellant had abused her liberty of bail by failing to appear before the Court and showed no interest in prosecuting her appeal.
Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721, the Allahabad High Court reiterated that it cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without examining the merits. It is not bound to adjourn cases indefinitely in the absence of the appellant and may proceed to decide the appeal on the record and trial court judgment.
After a thorough review of the trial court's detailed and well-reasoned judgment, the High Court found the conviction to be based on unimpeachable evidence. It emphasized the reliability of independent witnesses and the consistency of medical reports which clearly established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense's denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was found to be unconvincing in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The Court dismissed the appeal due to lack of merit and directed the trial court to take all necessary steps to arrest Srimati Phulmati so that she may serve the sentence imposed.
This judgment reinforces the principle that accused persons cannot indefinitely evade justice by absconding and that courts have the duty to decide cases on merits to prevent abuse of the judicial process. It further clarifies that while courts may show indulgence in the absence of an accused, they are not compelled to grant perpetual adjournments and may proceed to deliver justice expeditiously.
Bottom Line:
The High Court emphasized that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution without examining the merits of the case. It upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 307 IPC, observing that the trial court's judgment was based on credible evidence, including testimony from independent witnesses and medical reports.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 307 IPC, Section 313 Cr.P.C., Sections 82, 83, 446 Cr.P.C.
Smt. Phulmati v. State, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972964
