High Court Restores Criminal Appeal Erroneously Abated Based on Factually Incorrect Police Report of Appellant’s Death

The petitioner, Sakali Devi, originally filed an appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 377/2015) against an acquittal.

On 13.03.2026, the High Court ordered the appeal abated based on a report from the Superintendent of Police (SP), Samastipur and the SHO, Tajpur, which erroneously claimed the appellant was dead.

The petitioner subsequently filed a restoration application (Cr. Misc. No. 33059/2026), appearing in person and producing documentary evidence including her Aadhaar card, PAN card, and a certificate from the Gram Panchayat proving she was alive.

It was revealed that the police had mistakenly reported the death of another woman with the same name (Sakali Devi, wife of Dhanraj Paswan) instead of the appellant (Sakali Devi, wife of Late Bal Govind Sada) due to the absence of parentage details in the court's initial inquiry list.

1. Whether the order of abatement dated 13.03.2026 should be recalled and the appeal restored to its original file upon proof that the appellant is alive.

2. Whether disciplinary and contempt proceedings against the concerned police officials should be pursued or dropped in light of their apologies and the circumstances of the error.

Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 435 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which dictates the abatement of appeals on the death of the accused or appellant.

The court also exercised its inherent powers to recall orders obtained or passed based on factual errors to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the erroneous death report was a "genuine mistake" resulting from insufficient identification details (specifically the husband’s name) provided to the police for verification.

Both the SP and the SHO submitted show-cause affidavits tendering unconditional apologies and explaining that the error occurred because a different "Sakali Devi" in the same village had indeed died seven years prior.

The court noted that the SP had already suspended the SHO and initiated departmental proceedings. However, since the error was attributed to an "advertent error" arising from an incomplete list provided by the High Court's own registry, the court determined that the extreme measure of suspension was unnecessary.

The court emphasized the need for administrative reforms in the calling of "well-being reports" to include complete parentage and address details to avoid such identity mix-ups in the future.

The court accepted the unconditional apologies of the Superintendent of Police and the SHO and directed the revocation of the SHO’s suspension order, concluding the error was a mistake rather than deliberate misconduct.

The Joint Registrar (List) was directed to ensure that future requests for well-being reports include full descriptive details of appellants.