A trial conducted without the accused's presence and without proper representation violates fair trial rights, undermining the integrity of the judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the sole appellant/accused herein under Section 415 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surakhsha Sanhita (374 of the Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhoraji at Rajkot, in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2012, by which, the Trial Court convicted the appellant accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, further simple imprisonment of 3 months.

2. Facts and circumstances leading to file this conviction appeal are as follows:

2.1 The accused appellant was married to PW:9 Rajesh Devmurari.

The husband was serving as a Junior Clerk in the Irrigation Department, Dhoraji at Rajkot and allotted the Government Quarter known as Bhadar Colony. There was a dispute among the children of the colony. The appellant being a mother of the child was not happy with the conduct of child Jaldeep aged about 7 years, who happened to be a son of the complainant Girdharbhai Kothiya – PW:1, who was also member of the colony and residing adjacent to the quarter of the appellant. On 05.08.1996, due to early quarrel, the appellant had called the child Jaldeep to her house and killed him by heating the iron rod on his face and head and thereafter, threw his dead body in the backyard of the quarters. At the relevant time, no one present in the house and when PW:1 husband came from the market, he found foul smell. He asked the appellant wife about the cause of the smell. The accused appellant confessed her guilt inter alia stating that she has killed the child Jaldeep, causing head injuries by iron rod. The family of the child had made efforts to search the child. PW:13 Kanjibhai being a member of the colony saw the accused throwing the dead body of the deceased in the backyard of the quarters. He told the said facts to PW:1 – father of the deceased. The father immediately filed a complaint before Dhoraji Police inter alia alleging that the appellant accused killed his child and the offence of murder being registered as I- C.R.No.183 of 1996 and accordingly, the appellant accused was arrested on 06.08.1996.

2.2 After due investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the appellant. The charge had been framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhoraji at Rajkot against the accused. After framing of the charge, the appellant was granted bail by the High Court. Thereafter, she did not remain present before the Sessions Court. The police could not execute the non-bailable warrant. PW:9 being a husband, was unable to provide whereabouts of the appellant accused. The case was adjourned from time to time before absconding the appellant accused. In the year 2024, the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were being initiated against the accused. The accused was declared to be proclaimed offender. The Trial Court, in order to dispose of the old sessions case, by invoking Section 299 of the Cr.P.C., recorded the evidence of witnesses in absence of the accused. The examination in chief of 17 witnesses was undertaken without the appellant being present in the Court and the right of cross examination, in view of the absconding of the accused was closed down. The Trial Court, after closure of the evidence of the prosecution, and hearing the public prosecutor, in absence of the accused, vide its judgment and order dated 12.06.2025 found that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant for the offence of murder and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment. In view of t