Reported dead by police, 62-year-old Samastipur woman tells Patna High Court she’s alive
Sakali Devi was briefly recorded as dead following an inquiry was ordered in connection with a 2015 criminal appeal stemming from an FIR registered in 2011 in Bihar’s Samastipur.
Woman's Ration Card issued in 2018 records her age as 62 years. (AI-generated image) A routine verification in a criminal appeal took an unusual turn in Bihar after a 62-year-old woman declared dead by the police was found to be alive, prompting the police to issue an unconditional apology, following which the Patna High Court noted an erring police officer’s “genuine mistake” and revoked his suspension.
Sakali Devi, a litigant, was stated to be dead by the Superintendent of Police in Bihar’s Samastipur district as well as the station house officer (SHO) of Tajpur Police Station, following a well-being inquiry regarding the appellants in compliance with a court order.
The inquiry was ordered in connection with a criminal appeal filed by Devi in 2015 stemming from a First Information Report (FIR) registered in 2011 at Tajpur Police Station.
On May 8, the Patna High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar had recorded Devi’s death in its order, stating, “Perused Letter No. 155 dated 11.02.2026 of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur along with the report of SHO, Tajpur Police Station, wherein it is indicated that during the enquiry it came to light that the sole appellant, namely Sakli Devi, is dead.”
Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar said that it was a genuine mistake and directed that the SHO’s suspension order be revoked.
Considering the letter, the bench noted that, as “no near relative has filed any application seeking leave to continue the appeal”, the criminal appeal filed by Devi would stand “abated”.
The matter then took a swift turn.
Illiterate woman, ‘callous’ SHO
Sakali Devi came forward pleading that the claim that she had died was “incorrect and factually wrong” for she is alive and “in sound health and mind”.
Her plea before the court stated, “Appellant is an illiterate innocent lady, and it appears that inadvertently, in the ADHAAR Card and PAN Card, her date of birth has been incorrectly recorded as 01.01.1935.”
It went on: “Appellant’s Ration Card issued in 2018 records her age as 62 years. It appears that the SHO, Tajpur Police Station, has callously prepared the report regarding Appellant’s death sitting in his chamber without any documentary evidence and also without actual spot verification.”
The woman argued that she would suffer “irreparable loss” if her plea was not allowed and filed for restoration of her criminal appeal.
Court takes note, SP apologises
The woman’s disclosure prompted the court to record, “…it has been found that ‘Sakali Devi’, concerning whom an earlier report was sent that ‘she is dead’, was not the correct report. On proper verification, it came to light that the appellant Sakali Devi in the present criminal appeal is still alive, and accordingly, it has been informed to the high court that said ‘Sakali Devi’ is alive.”
The court accepted the “unconditional and unqualified” apology of the Superintendent of Police and allowed the prayer to revoke the SHO’s suspension.
“In the show-cause affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, we found that one ‘Rakesh Kumar Sharma’ Station House Officer, Tajpur, has been suspended and a show-cause for the departmental proceeding has been issued to him. Since the mistake appears to be a genuine one, we direct that the suspension order be revoked. It is expected that the SHO, Tajpur, shall be careful in future, while submitting such a report,” the order held.
Counsel points out issue
The state counsel, meanwhile, pointed out that the affidavits filed in connection with the well-being reports called for by the court in different cases do not indicate the parentage or husband’s name mentioned in the appeal memo, but only mention the appellant’s name and address, which creates a problem in the proper identification of the appellant.
The counsel said there was “every likelihood” that in the name of the very same person, there may be more persons in that village under the same police station.
The joint registrar assured the court that, going forward, when the well-being reports would be called for in different criminal appeals, the “complete address of the appellant/appellants” would be furnished in line with the “cause title of the Memo of Appeal”.
Share
