Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea By Accused Absconding For 30+ Years To Recall 2025 Conviction Verdict In 1982 Murder Case
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a recall application filed seeking a recall of its judgment passed in March this year confirming the conviction of the an accused (appellant before HC) in connection with a 1982 Murder case.
A Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri noted that the recall application was barred by Section 362 CrPC which prohibits criminal courts from reviewing or altering their judgments once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
The Court also weighed in the conduct of the accused-appellant in evading the Court proceedings for over 30+ years despite being given several opportunities to represent himself in the court.
Briefly put, it was the appellant's case that the impugned judgment (confirming his conviction) had been passed in his absence, treating him as an absconder, despite the fact that the appeal had been admitted and the appellant earlier granted bail.
It was submitted that his original counsel had passed away long ago, and as a result the appellant could not be informed about the hearing in the appeal filed by him challenging his conviction.
The plea stated that although coercive measures had been issued against him, he was no longer residing in his village and was living with his brother in Punjab.
It was further submitted that the appellant came to know of the judgment only on 30 May 2025, after which he appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, on 2 June 2025 and has been in jail since.
On this basis, his counsel argued that the order was passed ex parte and deserved to be recalled.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai vs. State of Bihar 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597, where the Top Court had held that an already admitted appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed on the ground that the accused is absconding.
The Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, opposed his recall plea as it was submitted that March 2025 judgment was not a dismissal for default but a decision on merits after re-appreciation of the evidence.
The Court, it was pointed out, had already recorded that the appellant was missing for the last 30 years and even multiple reports from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, confirmed that despite efforts, the appellant and his sureties could not be traced.
Court's order
At the outset, the Court perused the impugned judgment to note that the appellant had been given ample opportunity to appear but deliberately avoided proceedings for over three decades.
Even non-bailable warrants had also been issued against him, yet he remained absconding, the Court noted.
"The appellant has not annexed any document which shows that he was residing outside of his residence and he never approached to his residence. No information was given to him by his family members and he was evading the Court proceedings for last thirty years. The order sheet of Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of 1983 reveals that several opportunities were given to the applicant/appellant. Even non-bailable warrant was issued against him but he did not come before the Court and gave wrong impression that whereabouts were not known to anybody".
Furthermore, the Court found that unlike in Dhananjay Rai's case (supra), where the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, in the present case, the judgment had been delivered after full re-appreciation of the evidence on record.
It also said that despite being released on bail, the appellant chose to abscond and did not appear to represent himself and therefore, the HC proceeded to consider and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The High Court further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Vikram Bakshi and Ors. v. R.P. Khosla and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 844, wherein it was reiterated that Section 362 CrPC bars criminal courts from reviewing or altering judgments once signed, save to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
The Bench noted that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) cannot be used to circumvent this bar.
Against this backdrop, holding the recall application as not maintainable, the Court observed thus:
"In the present facts and circumstances of the case, this recall application filed under Section 528 of BNSS along with delay condonation application is not maintainable as it is barred by Section 362 of Cr.P.C. (Section 403 of BNSS)".
Case title - Laxman vs. State of U.P.
Case citation :