9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1569 - SC - Indian LawsAbatement of appeals - appellant died pending the appeal - the sentence of imprisonment has become unworkable or not - whether in the facts of the present case the accused who was sentenced for imprisonment as well as for fine the High Court committed an error in not abating the appeal in toto? - HELD THAT - This Court in Bondada Gajapathi Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1964 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT had occasion to consider Section 431 Cr.P.C. A special leave petition was filed in this Court the accused died during pendency of special leave petition. This Court again reiterated the principle on which hearing of a proceeding may be continued after the death of an accused. The appeal filed by accused Ramesan in the High Court was not to abate on death of the accused. The High Court rightly did not direct for abatement of appeal and proceeded to consider the appeal on merits. The appeal before the High Court being against sentence of fine was required to be heard against the sentence of fine despite death of accused-appellant. The view of the High Court is upheld that appeal filed by the accused was not to abate and was required to be heard and decided on merits but there is one aspect of hearing of the appeal before the High Court which need to be noted - From the judgment of the High Court it does not appear that after the death of the appellant-accused his legal heirs were given opportunity to proceed with the appeal against the sentence of fine. The judgment of the High Court does not also mention that any counsel has appeared for the legal heirs. The High Court ought to have given an opportunity to legal heirs of the accused to make their submissions against the sentence of fine which fine could have been very well recovered from the assets of the accused in the hands of the legal heirs. The ends of justice be served in reviving the Criminal Appeal before the High Court to give an opportunity to the legal heirs of the accused to make their submissions against the sentence of fine - appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of appeals under Section 394 Cr.P.C. 2. Treatment of composite sentences involving both imprisonment and fine. 3. Rights of legal heirs to continue an appeal after the death of the accused. 4. Opportunity for legal heirs to make submissions against the sentence of fine. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Abatement of Appeals under Section 394 Cr.P.C.: The primary issue was whether the High Court erred in not abating the appeal in toto after the death of the accused, who was sentenced to both imprisonment and fine. Section 394 Cr.P.C. states that appeals shall abate upon the death of the accused, except for appeals against sentences of fine. The judgment clarified that an appeal involving a sentence of fine does not abate even if it is coupled with imprisonment. The court referenced historical and legal precedents to support this interpretation, including Pranab Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal, which established that a sentence of fine affects the property of the deceased in the hands of legal representatives. 2. Treatment of Composite Sentences Involving Both Imprisonment and Fine: The court examined whether an appeal from a composite sentence (imprisonment and fine) should abate. It was concluded that such an appeal is also considered an appeal from a sentence of fine, as per the interpretation of Section 431 of Cr.P.C. 1898 and Section 394 of the present Cr.P.C. This interpretation was supported by the case of Harnam Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, where it was established that an appeal from a composite sentence does not abate and must be heard on merits. 3. Rights of Legal Heirs to Continue an Appeal after the Death of the Accused: The judgment highlighted that legal heirs have the right to continue an appeal against a sentence of fine. This is based on the principle that the sentence of fine affects the property of the deceased, which may be in the hands of the legal representatives. The court referenced Bondada Gajapathi Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which emphasized that legal representatives are interested in the proceedings if the sentence affects the property. 4. Opportunity for Legal Heirs to Make Submissions Against the Sentence of Fine: The judgment noted a procedural lapse by the High Court in not giving the legal heirs an opportunity to make their submissions against the sentence of fine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have allowed the legal heirs to present their case, as the fine could be recovered from the deceased's assets. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and revived the appeal to be heard afresh, ensuring the legal heirs are given an opportunity to be heard. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal filed by the accused should not have abated upon his death and should be treated as an appeal against the sentence of fine. The High Court's decision to proceed on merits was upheld, but the case was remanded to ensure the legal heirs are given a fair opportunity to contest the sentence of fine. The appeal was partly allowed, and the High Court was directed to hear the case afresh with the involvement of the legal heirs.
|
