Back
Dismisses Phulmati's Attempt to Murder Appeal
The recently dismissed a 42-year-old criminal appeal filed by Phulmati, who was convicted under for attempting to murder a woman by pushing her into a well. The bench of Justice Vani Ranjan Agrawal proceeded to examine the appeal despite the appellant's absence, holding that the court is not bound to wait perpetually for an .
A 42-Year-Old Appeal Finally Decided
The case dates back to , when complainant Govindi Devi and the accused Phulmati went to redeem mortgaged jewellery in Kanpur. On their way back, near a well, Phulmati allegedly pushed Govindi into the well with the intent to rob her. Govindi sustained a fractured wrist but was rescued by bystanders. The trial court convicted Phulmati in and sentenced her to four years' rigorous imprisonment. Phulmati appealed the same year and was granted bail.
From Bail to Absconding
Over the years, Phulmati failed to appear before the High Court. Bailable warrants were issued in
and
, but she could not be traced at her given address. Proceedings under
were initiated, and later, action was taken against her
under
. However, even the
could not be located. The court observed that Phulmati had
"
"
and was not interested in pursuing her appeal.
Legal Precedent: The Panduranga Principles
Faced with an absent appellant, the High Court turned to the 's judgment in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (), which laid down six propositions for such situations. Crucially, the held that a High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for without examining its merits, but it is also not bound to adjourn the matter indefinitely if the appellant or counsel is absent. The court may proceed to dispose of the appeal after perusing the record.
: A Well-Reasoned Conviction
With the assistance of the State counsel, the court scrutinized the trial court record. It found that independent witnesses, including the complainant, the jeweller, and eyewitnesses, had consistently supported the prosecution case. The medical evidence confirmed the fracture consistent with a fall into the well. The court noted that there was no enmity or motive for false implication. The trial judge had delivered a "well-reasoned and detailed judgment," and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
"Not Bound to Wait Perennially"
In a pointed observation, the court stated:
"I do not find any prospect of the accused-appellant- Srimati Phulmati, who is absconding, being traced out and produced before this Court. It is apparent that she is not interested in the disposal of this appeal and has ."
The court emphasized that it cannot
"wait perennially for the accused-appellant"
and keep adjourning the hearing.
What Next for the Absconding Appellant?
The appeal was dismissed . The court directed the trial court to "leave no stone unturned" in ensuring the arrest of Phulmati so she can serve her sentence. A copy of the order was to be sent to the lower court for necessary action.
