Supreme Court Clarifies Abatement of Appeals in Cases Involving Both Imprisonment and Fine: Ramesan vs. State of Kerala (21 January 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 47

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and M.R. Shah, J.

What happens to a criminal appeal when the accused dies during the process, especially if they were sentenced to both imprisonment and a fine? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Ramesan vs. State of Kerala. The core issue was whether the appeal should be completely dismissed or if it could continue to address the fine component. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the abatement of appeals.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, delivered the judgment. The court examined the provisions of Section 394 of the CrPC, along with previous judgments, to determine the correct course of action when an appellant dies during the appeal process, particularly when a sentence includes both imprisonment and a fine.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) filed against Ramesan for offenses under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. Ramesan was accused of offenses related to illegal liquor. The Additional Sessions Judge found Ramesan guilty and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh under both Sections 55(a) and 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

Ramesan appealed the conviction to the High Court of Kerala. However, Ramesan passed away on 21 December 2007, while his appeal was pending. The High Court, aware of Ramesan’s death, decided to proceed with the appeal, citing Section 394 of the CrPC. The High Court upheld the conviction, noting that the imprisonment sentence was no longer applicable due to Ramesan’s death, but maintained the fine. Girija A., Ramesan’s legal heir, then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court should have dismissed the entire appeal due to Ramesan’s death.
• It was contended that Section 394 of the CrPC only saves appeals against a sentence of fine only.
• When there is a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the appeal should abate for both.
• The High Court erred in deciding the appeal on merits and should have abated it entirely.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the High Court was correct in deciding the appeal on merits because a fine was part of the sentence.
• The State contended that a sentence of fine, whether alone or with imprisonment, is still a sentence of fine.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether, in the present case, the High Court erred in not abating the appeal in its entirety, given that the accused was sentenced to both imprisonment and fine.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and precedents:

• Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the abatement of appeals. It specifies that appeals against a sentence of fine do not abate upon the death of the appellant.
  
  “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…”
• Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section outlines the procedure for the recovery of fines.
  
  “421. Warrant for levy of fine. — (1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine…”
• Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section specifies that a fine can be levied within six years of the sentence and that the death of the offender does not discharge the liability of their property.
  
  “70. Fine leviable within six years, or during imprisonment—Death not to discharge property from liability. —The fine, or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may be levied at any time within six years after the passing of the sentence…”
• Pranab Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, AIR 1959 SC 144: This case discussed the power of the High Court to determine a case even after the death of the convicted person if a sentence of fine was imposed.
• Bondada Gajapathi Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1645: This case reiterated that a proceeding can continue after the death of an accused if the sentence affects their property.
• Harnam Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 343: This case clarified that an appeal against a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine is still considered an appeal from a sentence of fine and does not abate.
• Lakshmi Shanker Srivastava Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 1 SCC 229: This case addressed the issue of abatement of appeals under Section 394 CrPC and the rights of legal heirs.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 394 CrPC*: The Court interpreted this section to mean that appeals against a sentence of fine do not abate, even if combined with a sentence of imprisonment.
• Section 421 CrPC*: The Court cited this section to show how fines are recovered, emphasizing that the financial aspect of the sentence remains even after the death of the accused.
• Section 70 IPC*: The Court used this section to highlight that the liability for a fine extends to the property of the deceased, which can be recovered even after their death.
• Pranab Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal and Another [AIR 1959 SC 144]*: This case was used to support the High Court’s power to continue proceedings related to fines even after the death of the accused.
• Bondada Gajapathi Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1964 SC 1645]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that legal representatives have an interest in proceedings that affect the property of the deceased.
• Harnam Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh [(1975) 3 SCC 343]*: This judgment was crucial in clarifying that an appeal against a composite sentence does not abate, and the appeal against the fine component remains valid.
• Lakshmi Shanker Srivastava Vs. State (Delhi Administration) [(1979) 1 SCC 229]*: This case was cited to reinforce the principle that appeals from a sentence of fine do not abate and that legal heirs can continue the appeal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 394 of the CrPC, which, according to the court, clearly states that appeals against a sentence of fine do not abate. The court also emphasized the financial implications of a fine, which affect the property of the deceased and their legal heirs.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal interpretation of Section 394 of the CrPC and the precedents set by previous judgments. The financial implications of the fine were also a significant factor, as the court recognized that the fine could be recovered from the deceased’s property.

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing the clear language of Section 394 of the CrPC and the precedents set by previous judgments. The court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the legal provisions and the need to protect the interests of the legal heirs.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in not abating the appeal entirely. However, it also noted that the High Court should have provided an opportunity to the legal heirs of the deceased to present their arguments against the sentence of fine. The court stated,

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• An appeal against a sentence of fine does not abate upon the death of the appellant, even if it is part of a composite sentence that includes imprisonment.
• Legal heirs of the deceased have a right to be heard on the issue of the fine, as the fine can be recovered from the deceased’s property.
• High Courts must provide an opportunity to the legal heirs of the deceased to make submissions against the sentence of fine.
• This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 394 of the CrPC and provides guidance on how to handle appeals in cases where the appellant dies during the process.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and revived Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2007 before the High Court. The High Court was directed to hear the appeal afresh after giving an opportunity to the legal heirs of the accused to make their submissions against the sentence of fine.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appeal against a sentence of fine does not abate upon the death of the appellant, even if it is part of a composite sentence that includes imprisonment. This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 394 of the CrPC and aligns with previous Supreme Court judgments on the matter. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the procedure to be followed by High Courts in such cases.

Conclusion

In the case of Ramesan vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court clarified that an appeal against a sentence of fine does not abate upon the death of the appellant, even if it is part of a composite sentence. The Court directed the High Court to rehear the appeal, providing an opportunity for the legal heirs to present their case against the fine. This judgment reinforces the importance of the financial aspect of a sentence and the rights of the legal heirs of a deceased accused.