The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that elderly accused in criminal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Dowry Prohibition Act need not be present for every hearing, reinforcing the principle that procedural hardship must yield to human dignity and age-related vulnerability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sunkara Purna Chandra Rao (age 65) and Kurra Suvarna Lakshmi (age 68), are the father-in-law and aunt respectively of the complainant in a criminal case registered as C.C. No. 239 of 2025. They are charged under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (relating to cruelty), Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (demand of dowry), and Section 4 of the same Act (dowry death). The trial is ongoing before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali.
Procedural History
- The petitioners, both above 65 years of age, filed a prior application seeking exemption from personal appearance.
- A Single Judge of this Court had previously granted interim relief dispensing with their daily attendance.
- The trial court has already examined all material prosecution witnesses.
- The petitioners now seek to make this interim order absolute.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a final order exempting them from mandatory daily appearance in court, except during critical stages of trial, citing their advanced age and the fact that all prosecution evidence has been recorded.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the broader principles of fair trial require elderly accused to be physically present at every hearing, or whether their personal attendance may be dispensed with except for essential stages.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The learned counsel argued that the petitioners are aged, infirm, and have no role in the ongoing investigation. All prosecution witnesses have been examined, and their presence at every hearing serves no evidentiary purpose. Reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan v. Ram Lal and State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to emphasize that courts must balance procedural requirements with the dignity and health of elderly accused. The counsel contended that continued compulsion to appear daily amounts to harassment and violates Article 21.
For the Respondent
The complainant did not oppose the relief. The Assistant Public Prosecutor acknowledged that the prosecution case is built on documentary and witness evidence, and the petitioners’ presence is not material to the trial’s integrity. No prejudice to the prosecution was alleged.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the charges, the stage of trial, and the age and health of the petitioners. It noted that the prosecution has completed its evidence, and the petitioners’ testimony under Section 313 CrPC remains the only substantive personal interaction required. The Court emphasized that personal appearance is not an end in itself but a means to ensure fair trial.
"The requirement of personal appearance must yield to the realities of age, health, and the stage of proceedings, particularly when the accused are not material witnesses and the prosecution case is complete."
The Court held that compelling elderly persons to attend daily hearings, when their testimony is the only remaining personal requirement, imposes undue hardship without any corresponding benefit to the administration of justice. The Court distinguished cases where accused are young, flight risks, or where their presence is necessary for identification or cross-examination. Here, none of those conditions applied.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that elderly accused in advanced-stage trials need not appear daily, and directed the trial court to exempt them from personal attendance except for examination under Section 313 CrPC and judgment delivery. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Personal Appearance Is Not Mandatory at Every Hearing
- Practitioners may now file applications under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS seeking exemption for elderly or infirm accused in cases where prosecution evidence is complete.
- Courts must assess whether daily attendance serves any evidentiary or procedural purpose before insisting on presence.
Age and Stage of Trial Are Decisive Factors
- The judgment establishes that advanced age and completion of prosecution evidence are sufficient grounds for exemption.
- This applies equally to cases under BNS, DPA, and other criminal statutes.
- No need to prove physical incapacity - chronological age alone, coupled with procedural context, suffices.
Procedural Fairness Trumps Formalism
- Courts must avoid mechanical application of procedural rules that cause undue hardship.
- The ruling reinforces that Article 21 protects not just substantive rights but also dignity in procedural conduct.
- Defense counsel should routinely raise this issue for accused above 60 in non-violent, evidence-complete cases.
