The Gujarat High Court strongly criticised the State Police for failing to inform the judiciary about the death of an accused, who was posthumously convicted for the murder of his wife. The Court termed the lapse as a serious instance of negligence that led to the waste of valuable judicial time.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C.M. Roy and Justice D.M. Vyas was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the State in 2013. On July 11, 2025, the High Court allowed the appeal and convicted the sole accused, unaware that he had died nearly nine years earlier in 2016. As the accused was not present on the date of conviction, the Court issued a non-bailable warrant to secure his presence for sentencing.
However, when the matter was taken up again on July 28, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) informed the bench, to its "utter surprise," that the accused had died on September 21, 2016. She submitted a copy of the death certificate and a report from the concerned Police Inspector.
The APP explained that she had not been informed about the accused’s death by either the police or the Public Prosecutor’s office prior to the July 11 hearing. As a result, she could not inform the Court, and the proceedings continued without knowledge of the accused's demise.
Taking strong exception to this oversight, the Court stated:
"We very seriously deprecate the said negligence on the part of the concerned police in not informing the factum of death of the accused to the office of the PP of the High Court and also to the present APP even when the matter is taken up for final hearing."
The bench observed that the matter should have abated upon the accused's death in 2016 and emphasised that the Court was made to hear and decide a case that had effectively become infructuous years ago. The judges noted that for nearly nine years, neither the police nor the Public Prosecutor’s office had brought the accused's death to the Court's notice.
Describing it as a "fit case" for departmental action, the Court directed the Public Prosecutor and the Additional Public Prosecutor to bring the matter to the attention of the Superintendent of Police, Kheda District, so that appropriate action could be taken against the responsible police officials.
Further, the bench instructed the Public Prosecutor’s office to implement measures to prevent such lapses in the future, highlighting that:
"The office of the PP also equally has responsibilities to verify in such old appeals regarding the availability or not of the accused before commencing argument in final hearing... It shows that there is lack of proper coordination between the police and the office of the PP."
In light of the accused's death, the Court recalled its July 11 judgment convicting him and formally disposed of the appeal as abated.
Picture Source :
