RAJLAKSHMI DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision in this case is whether there are sufficient grounds to dispense with the personal attendance in court of the accused, a purdanashin Hindu lady, and to permit her to appear through a Pleader.

(2.) There is no doubt that merely because the accused is a purdanashin woman, she is (not?) entitled in a criminal case as a matter of right to be exempted from personal attendance at Court. The screen must not be used to defeat the ends of justice. At the same time the discretion, vested in Court under Section 205, Criminal P. C., where a purdanashin lady is an applicant for dispensing with the personal attendance in Court, must be reasonably exercised. After due consideration of all the attendant circumstances including the social status, custom and practice of the petitioner accused as also the nature of the offence it is to be decided whether personal presence is essential.

(3.) As for instance if there be a question of identification of any person by the accused it is very essential that the Court should not until there is a very strong case and there are cogent reasons given to exempt even a purdanashin woman from attending the Court --'Aswini Kumar v. Binapani Dasi', Cr. Revn. No. 916 of 1950, D/- 22-3-51 (Cal). It may be noticed that in the case just referred to there was an affidavit in opposition stating that the petitioner was not a purdanashin lady at all and her movements were specifically referred to allegations which were not seriously challenged before this Court.