Date of the Judgment: 07 March 2022
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose
Can an appeal against a conviction continue after the death of the appellant? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where the appellant, convicted of murdering his daughter-in-law, passed away while his appeal was pending. The court examined the provisions of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the abatement of appeals upon the death of an appellant. This judgment clarifies the procedure for continuing an appeal after the death of a convict and the conditions under which such appeals can be pursued by a near relative. The two-judge bench, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, delivered the order.
Case Background
The appellant, Yeruva Sayireddy, was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of his daughter-in-law. The High Court upheld this conviction. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. However, the appellant died after serving approximately 12 years in jail. The appeal was pending at the time of his death.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| [Date not specified] | Trial Court convicts Yeruva Sayireddy under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| [Date not specified] | High Court confirms the conviction. |
| [Date not specified] | Yeruva Sayireddy appeals to the Supreme Court. |
| [Date not specified] | Yeruva Sayireddy dies after serving 12 years in jail. |
| 07 March 2022 | Supreme Court disposes of the appeal as abated. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellant, Yeruva Sayireddy, for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court confirmed this conviction. Following this, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. However, before the Supreme Court could decide on the appeal, the appellant passed away. The Supreme Court then considered whether the appeal could continue despite the appellant’s death.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which deals with the abatement of appeals. The provision states:
“394. Abatement of appeals. – 1) Every appeal under section 377 or section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused. 2) Every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant: Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate.”
The explanation to the proviso defines ‘near relative’ as a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother, or sister.
Arguments
Mr. Shikhil Suri, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court, argued that this was a case where the appellant had a strong chance of being acquitted. He submitted that considering the intention of the legislature to allow appeals to continue even after the death of the appellant, his oral prayer should be considered as an application for the continuation of the appeal. He contended that the appeal should not be abated.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues in the judgment. However, the central issue before the court was:
- Whether the appeal could continue after the death of the appellant, given that no application for continuation was made by a near relative within the stipulated time.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal could continue after the death of the appellant? | Appeal abated. | The court held that since no near relative applied for continuation of the appeal within 30 days of the appellant’s death, the appeal abates as per Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Amicus Curiae could not be considered a near relative. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court interpreted the provision to mean that an appeal abates upon the death of the appellant unless a near relative applies for its continuation within 30 days of the appellant’s death.
| Authority | Type | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 394, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Legal Provision | The court interpreted and applied the provision to the facts of the case, determining that the appeal abates due to the lack of a timely application by a near relative. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Mr. Shikhil Suri, Amicus Curiae, requested the Court to consider his oral prayer as an application for continuation of the appeal. | The Court rejected the submission, stating that the Amicus Curiae cannot be considered a near relative as defined under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court strictly interpreted and applied Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, observing that the appeal must abate as no near relative had applied for continuation within 30 days of the appellant’s death.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the explicit provisions of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court emphasized that the law clearly stipulates that an appeal abates upon the death of the appellant unless a near relative applies for its continuation within 30 days. The absence of such an application by a near relative left the court with no option but to abate the appeal.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Strict adherence to legal procedure | 70% |
| Lack of application by near relative | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court reasoned that the Amicus Curiae, despite his valid concerns, could not be considered a ‘near relative’ as defined by the statute. Therefore, the procedural requirements for continuing the appeal were not met.
“The counsel, as an Amicus, cannot be treated as a near relative of the deceased appellant/convict.”
“The application for continuance of the appeal having not been made within 30 days or even thereafter by any near relative, in our opinion, as per the provision of Section 394 of the Cr.P.C., this appeal would abate.”
“Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of as having abated.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Appeals against convictions abate upon the death of the appellant, unless a near relative applies for continuation within 30 days of the death.
- ✓ An Amicus Curiae cannot be considered a near relative for the purpose of continuing an appeal under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- ✓ The strict timelines and requirements under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, must be followed for an appeal to continue after the death of the appellant.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appeal against a conviction abates upon the death of the appellant if no near relative applies for its continuation within 30 days of the appellant’s death, as per Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This reaffirms the existing position of law without introducing any new legal principles.
Conclusion
In the case of Yeruva Sayireddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court abated the appeal following the death of the appellant. The court strictly adhered to the provisions of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates that an appeal abates upon the death of the appellant unless a near relative applies for its continuation within 30 days. The court clarified that an Amicus Curiae cannot be considered a near relative for this purpose. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in criminal appeals, particularly when the appellant passes away.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Child Category: Section 394, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Parent Category: Abatement of Appeals
Child Category: Death of Appellant
Parent Category: Supreme Court Judgments
Child Category: Criminal Appeals
FAQ
Q: What happens to a criminal appeal if the appellant dies?
A: Generally, the appeal abates, meaning it comes to an end. However, if the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or imprisonment, a near relative can apply to continue the appeal within 30 days of the appellant’s death.
Q: Who is considered a ‘near relative’ for the purpose of continuing an appeal?
A: According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a near relative is a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother, or sister.
Q: Can an Amicus Curiae apply to continue an appeal after the death of the appellant?
A: No, an Amicus Curiae cannot be considered a near relative and therefore cannot apply to continue the appeal.
Q: What is the time limit for a near relative to apply for the continuation of an appeal?
A: The application must be made within 30 days of the appellant’s death.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the abatement of appeals upon the death of the appellant. It clarifies that only near relatives, as defined by the law, can apply for the continuation of the appeal within the stipulated time.