Kerala High Court
Appukuttan vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2025
2025:KER:68464
CRL.A NO. 260 OF 2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 260 OF 2016
CRIME NO.350/2008 OF Konni Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.59 OF 2009 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PATHANAMTHITTA
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2015 IN SC
NO.570 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - III,
PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/S:
APPUKUTTAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.KUTTY, KUNAMPALAVILAYIL VEEDU, THUVAYUR
NORTH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SMT.G.VIDYA
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN - SR.P.P.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2016 AND HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2025,
THE COURT ON 15.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68464
CRL.A NO. 260 OF 2016 2
'C.R'
JUDGMENT
Crl. Appeal No. 260/2016 arises from SC No.570/2009 on the
file of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Pathanamthitta. The trial
court by judgment dated 02.12.2015 convicted the appellant/1 st
accused for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years
and fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant/1st accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of three months.
2. Smt. Vidya G, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, submits that the appellant is no more and he expired on
08.10.2024. A copy of the Death Certificate issued by the
Registrar of Births and Deaths, Erathu Grama Panchayat, is also
placed before me. The learned counsel submits that the near
relatives are not interested in prosecuting the appeal, as the fine
amount has already been remitted.
3. In Pazhani v. State of Kerala, 2017 (1) KLT 341
(F.B.), a Full Bench of this court examined the question of
whether an appeal against conviction and sentence (including a
fine) will abate upon the death of the appellant if no near relatives
come forward to prosecute the appeal. The court ruled that the
2025:KER:68464
case will be consigned to the record, and the near relatives of the
deceased appellant may file an application to revive the appeal.
4. In this case, the court is tasked with determining
whether, given that the near relatives of the deceased appellant are
not interested in pursuing this appeal, the matter should be
consigned to the records, or whether it should proceed to
adjudicate the appeal on the merits, or whether the appeal could
be dismissed as abated. Incidentally, it is also to be seen whether
the Full Bench decision in Pazhani (supra) is good law in the
light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesan (dead)
through legal representative v. State of Kerala, (2020) 3
SCC 45.
5. Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') and Section 435 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the BNSS') deal with the issue of abatement of appeals. The
provisions are in pari materia and read thus:-
Cr.P.C - S. 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:
2025:KER:68464
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.
Explanation.-- In this section, "near relative" means a
parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister."
BNSS - S. 435 - Abatement of appeals
"(1) Every appeal under section 418 or section 419 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.
Explanation.-- In this section, "near relative" means a
parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister."
6. In Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of W.B., AIR
1959 SC 144, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had to
consider why the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898, enabled the continuance of the proceedings even on the
death of the convicted person. It was held:
"7. There are a number of decisions in the books, mostly of
Judges sitting singly, that though S.431, in terms, does not
2025:KER:68464
apply to revisional applications, the principle of that section
applied to such cases. It is not necessary to refer to those
cases specifically. In view of the fact that even in the
absence of any statutory provisions, we have held, in
agreement with the decision aforesaid of the Bombay High
Court, that the High Court has the power to determine the
case even after the death of the convicted person, if there
was a sentence of fine also imposed on him, because that
sentence affects the property of the deceased in the hands of
his legal representative, it now remains to consider whether
the High Court was right in limiting its power of revision to
the question of fine only whether it was proper or excessive
without going into the merits of the order of conviction.
Once it is held that the High Courts revisional jurisdiction is
attracted to such a case, it is difficult to limit the exercise of
such a power in the way the High Court has done. Under
S.439 of the Code, the discretion is vested in the High Court
to exercise such of the powers of an appellate Court, as may
be attracted to the case, and it has also the power to
enhance a sentence subject to the proviso that no order to
the prejudice of an accused person, shall be made unless he
has had the opportunity of being heard. In the instant case,
we are not concerned with the question of enhancement of
sentence; we are concerned with the question whether there
is any provision in the Code, which limits the discretionary
power of the High Court to examine the "correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or
order"(S.435), passed by any inferior Court. On the death of
the convicted person, the question of his serving the whole
or a portion of his sentence of imprisonment, does not arise.
But the sentence of fine still remains to be examined
whether it was well founded in law. This question cannot be
effectively gone into unless the order of conviction itself is
examined on its merits. If the fact that the fine will have to
be paid out of the estate of the deceased appellant or
petitioner in revision, is the ground for giving the heir or
legal representative a right to continue the appeal or a
privilege of maintaining or continuing a revision, the same
principle should entitle him to question the correctness of
the conviction itself, for, if the conviction remains, at least
2025:KER:68464
some fine however nominal, will have to be paid by the heir
or the legal representative out of the estate of the deceased.
In our opinion, therefore, where the High Court thinks it fit
and proper to entertain an application in revision or calls
for the record suo motu, it has the power to examine the
whole question of the correctness, property (sic) or legality
of the sentence of fine, which necessarily involves
examining the order of conviction itself from that point of
view."
7. The question was again considered by a three-judge
bench of the Supreme Court in Bondada Gajapathi Rao v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1645, where the legal
representatives of a deceased appellant had approached the
Supreme Court for leave to continue the appeal before the
Supreme Court. It was held that the principle behind permitting
the continuation of a proceeding even after the death of the
accused would appear to be the effect of the sentence of fine on the
property of the accused in the hands of his legal representatives.
The Judges constituting the bench delivered separate judgments,
though all of them concurred that, in the facts of the case, the legal
representatives have no right to continue with the appeal before
the Supreme Court. In the words of Sarkar, J. :-
"3. The principle on which the hearing of a proceeding
may be continued after the death of an accused would
appear to be the effect of the sentence on his property in
the hands of his legal representatives. If the sentence
affects that property, the legal representatives can be
said to be interested in the proceeding and allowed to
2025:KER:68464
continue it.
4.xxxxxxxxxx
5.xxxxxxxxxx
6. In my view, for these reasons the legal representatives
are not entitled to continue the appeal. That being so and
as the sentence was one of imprisonment which would
not affect anyone after the death of the accused, it cannot
be said that there is anyone interested in the appeal.
There is no question, therefore, in such a case for
proceeding further with the appeal."
Hidayatullah, J. expressly held that an appeal is not a heritable
asset and does not revolve as a matter of course upon an executor
or heir, and the intention behind permitting an appeal under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to continue even after the death
of the appellant is only when there are people whose interests are
directly jeopardized by the judgment under appeal even after the
death of the appellant. It was held:-
"9. It is contended that without the aid of a provision like
Section 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appeal
must be treated as continuing and it is pointed out that
for this reason and for the additional reason that the
powers of revision can be exercised suo motu this Court
allowed legal representatives to continue to prosecute
criminal revisions under Section 439 of the Code
in Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal
and Pritam Singh v. State. It is urged that on a parity of
reasoning this appeal can be continued by the heirs. It is
not my purpose to consider, whether in the absence of
any direct injury to the living every criminal proceeding
must come to an end after the death of the accused
whether before his conviction or after. But there must
2025:KER:68464
always be some discernible reason for permitting
another person to continue an appeal whether civil or
criminal after the death of the appellant. An appeal is not
a heritable asset and does not revolve as a matter of
course upon an executor or heir. Even under the civil law
an express provision is required for substitution of
another person in the place of the person deceased before
the appeal can be continued and this is again subject to
whether the cause of action survives or not. The same
principle is again to forefront in Section 431 when it
allows an appeal in respect of fine to be continued but not
appeals involving imprisonment. The intention there too
appears to be to afford only those persons a right whose
interests are directly jeopardized by the judgment.
Insofar as personal punishment (other than a fine) is
concerned that stands dissolved by the death of the
offender and an appeal to get that punishment set aside
becomes infructuous and abates.
10.xxxxxxxxxx
11.xxxxxxxxxx
12. There is good reason for holding that a criminal
prosecution in which the State is anxious to bring an
offender to book with a view to getting him punished for
a crime comes to an end on the death of the person
arraigned. The same principle must apply also to appeals
after conviction, except insofar as a judgment already
rendered touches assets which would come to the legal
representatives or the executor as the case may be.
Beyond this it is not possible to conceive of remoter
interests because if the law were to take into account such
remote interests every appeal would have to be continued
after the death of the appellant. In my judgment, the
present petitioners do not claim any direct interest and
the appeal must, therefore, be taken to have abated. I
agree that the petition be dismissed and the appeal held
to have abated."
Mudholkar, J., also took the view that it is only when the estate
2025:KER:68464
of the accused is in the hands of its legal heirs and is directly
affected by the judgment that an appeal can be allowed to continue
after the death of the appellant.
8. In Harnam Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
(1975) 3 SCC 343, the Supreme Court considered the judgment
in Bondada Gajapathi Rao (supra) and the provisions of
Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and again
took the view that an appeal from a sentence of fine is exempted
from the all-pervasive rule of abatement of criminal appeals for the
reason that the fine constitutes a liability on the estate of the
deceased and the legal representatives on whom the estate
devolves are entitled to ward off that liability. It was held:-
"9. Every other appeal under Chapter XXXI, except an
appeal from a sentence of fine, finally abates on the death of
the appellant. By "every other appeal" is meant an appeal
other than one against an order of acquittal, that is to say,
an appeal against an order of conviction. Every appeal
against conviction therefore abates on the death of the
accused except an appeal from a sentence of fine. An appeal
from a sentence of fine is excepted from the all-pervasive
rule of abatement of criminal appeals for the reason that
the fine constitutes a liability on the estate of the deceased
and the legal representatives on whom the estate devolves
are entitled to ward off that liability. By Section 70 of the
Penal Code the fine can be levied at any time within six
years after the passing of the sentence and if the offender
has been sentenced for a longer period than six years, then
at any time previous to the expiration of that period; "and
the death of the offender does not discharge from the
2025:KER:68464
liability any property which would, after his death, be
legally liable for his debts". The fact that the offender has
served the sentence in default of payment of fine is not a
complete answer to the right of the Government to realise
the fine because under the proviso to Section 386(1)(b) of
the Code the court can, for special reasons to be recorded in
writing, issue a warrant for realising the fine even if the
offender has undergone the whole of the imprisonment in
default of payment of fine. The sentence of fine remains
outstanding though the right to recover the fine is
circumscribed by a sort of a period of limitation prescribed
by Section 70 of the Penal Code.
10.xxxxxxxxxxx
11. It is difficult to discern any principle behind the contrary
view. The reason of the rule contained in the exception is
that a sentence of fine operates directly against the estate of
the deceased and therefore the legal representatives are
entitled to clear the estate from that liability. Whether or
not the sentence of fine is combined with any other sentence
can make no difference to the application of that principle."
In Ramesan (supra), the accused (Ramesan) had been convicted
and sentenced under Sections 55(a) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act.
The sentence included a fine. Pending his appeal before this Court,
the accused died. This Court proceeded to hear and decide the
appeal on the merits without treating the appeal as abated. One of
the legal heirs of the deceased Ramesan approached the Supreme
Court, taking the plea that the appeal should have been treated as
abated. The Supreme Court considered the decisions in Pranab
Kumar Mitra (supra), Bondada Gajapathi Rao (supra) &
Harnam Singh (supra) and concluded that the scheme of the
2025:KER:68464
provisions in Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
was similar to the scheme of Section 394 Cr.P.C and the principles
in the aforesaid judgments rendered in the context of Section 431
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 would be applicable under
Section 394 Cr.P.C as well. Thus, it was held that the High Court
committed no error in deciding the appeal on the merits.
However, the matter was restored to the file of this Court on the
ground that it was not clear as to whether the legal heirs had been
allowed to contest the matter. It was held:-
"20. Although, we have upheld the view of the High Court
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 needs 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 the 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."
9. In K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka,
(2013) 3 SCC 721, (referring to Bani Singh v. State of U.P,
1996 (2) KLT 424 (SC)) it was held:-
"19. From the aforesaid decision in Bani Singh, (1996) 4
2025:KER:68464
SCC 720, the principles that can be culled out are:
19.1. That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-
prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits;
19.2. That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if
both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent;
19.3. That the court may, as a matter of prudence or
indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so;
19.4. That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the
record and judgment of the trial court;
19.5. That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own,
come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and
fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the
appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the
lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to
appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in
law would preclude the court from doing so; and
19.6. That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of
the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation."
10. In Muhammed @ Kunhalan v. Sub-Inspector of
Police, 2022 (6) KLT 308, the appellant was convicted under
Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment along with a fine. An appeal was preferred against
the conviction and sentence. However, during the pendency of the
appeal and before it could be heard, the appellant passed away.
This Court concluded that the appellate court is bound to dispose
of the appeal on its merits, even if the legal representatives of the
deceased appellant do not come forward to prosecute the appeal.
In Kunhalan (supra), this Court did not confine the case to
records but proceeded to decide the matter on the merits.
2025:KER:68464
11. On an analysis of the ratio in Ramesan (supra), Bani
Singh (supra), and Panduranga (supra), it is apparent that the
Full Bench decision of this Court (Pazhani (supra)) requiring an
appeal to be consigned to records if near relatives do not come
forward to prosecute the appeal is no longer good law and the
course adopted by this Court in Kunhalan (supra) is the correct
one. Thus, if the appellant dies when an appeal against a
composite sentence of imprisonment and fine is pending, the
appellate court shall proceed to allow the near relatives to contest
the matter, and if they do not come forward, the appellate court
shall decide the appeal on the merits.
12. Nevertheless, the question remains as to what is to be
done by the appellate court when the appellate court is informed
that the near relatives of the deceased appellant do not wish to
prosecute the appeal. A perusal of the decisions in Pranab
Kumar Mitra (supra), Bondada Gajapathi Rao (supra),
Harnam Singh (supra), and Ramesan (supra) as also the
provisions of Section 394 Cr.P.C./Section 435 BNSS make it clear
that the only reason for permitting the continuation of an appeal
by near relatives on the death of the appellant is that where there is
a sentence of fine, such a sentence will constitute a claim on the
estate of the deceased in the hands of the legal representatives. In
2025:KER:68464
Surya Baksh Singh v. State of U.P., 2013 (4) KLT 493
(SC), the Supreme Court took the view that, except in certain
situations (such as death sentence reference), the legislature has
cast no duty on the appellate court to examine the correctness of a
conviction and sentence unless the jurisdiction of the appellate
court has been specifically invoked. It was held:-
"3. The legal provisions on this subject are to be found
principally in Chapter XXIX CrPC. Section 372 reiterates
the general principle of law that an appeal is not a right
unless it is granted by a statute. This section states that
no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a
criminal court except as provided for by CrPC or by any
other law for the time being in force. Section 374(2)
thereafter stipulates that any person convicted in a trial
held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or in a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence
of imprisonment for more than seven years has been
passed against him or against any other person
convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High
Court. These provisions must immediately be compared
with the preceding Chapter XXVIII containing a
fasciculus dealing with a Death Sentence which becomes
efficacious only on its being confirmed by the High Court.
The proviso to Section. 368 enjoins that an order of
confirmation shall not be made until the period allowed
for preferring an appeal has expired, or, if an appeal is
presented within such period, until such appeal is
disposed of. The presence or absence of the
accused/convict in the cases of Death References, makes
little difference since the High Courts are duty-bound to
give the matter their utmost and undivided attention.
Indubitably, the assistance of the Counsel is very
important and helpful to the Court in coming to its
conclusion. Since it is conceivable that an appeal may not
be filed in the High Court by a convict who is to undergo
2025:KER:68464
more than seven years' imprisonment, the efficacy, legal
correctness and propriety of such a sentence is not
always dependent on receiving the imprimatur of the
High Court.
4.......
5.............It is thus significant, and so we reiterate, that
the Legislature has cast an obligation on the Appellate
Court to decide an appeal on its merits only in the case of
Death References, regardless of whether or not an appeal
has been preferred by the convict."
13. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872, there was no
provision similar to Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898, Section 394 of the Cr.P.C or Section 435 of the BNSS. In
Imperatrix v. Donga'ji Anda'ji, ILR 1878 (2) Bom 564, the
High Court of Bombay was called upon to consider whether an
appeal lodged under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872, could
be continued after the death of the appellant. While Melvill, J.,
held that the appeal would abate, Kemball, J., held that the
appeal could continue on the application of a person representing
the estate. In view of the difference of opinion, the matter was
placed before the Chief Justice, who agreed with the views of
Melvill, J., and held that the appeal would abate. While holding
that in the absence of any provision, the legal representatives
cannot continue the appeal, it was noticed that the position may be
different in the case of revisional jurisdiction, as such jurisdiction
2025:KER:68464
was supervisory and was exercisable even suo motu. Though
rendered at a time when the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872,
was in force and when there was no provision akin to Section 394
Cr.P.C./435 BNSS, certain observations in that judgment are
relevant for this case:
Melvill, J. - ".......The question remains,-whether, after
the death of the appellant, we ought, as an Appellate
Court, to consider the propriety of the conviction and
sentence, notwithstanding that there is no longer any
person in existence who can prosecute the appeal. I think
that we ought not. Section 280 of the Criminal Prócedure
Code says that "the Appellate Court, after perusing the
proceedings of the lower Court, and after hearing the
appellant, his counsel, or agent, if they appear * * * may
alter or reverse the finding and sentence or order of such
Court, and may, if it see reason to do so, enhance any
punishment that has been awarded, or order the
appellant to be re-tried." It is manifest that, when the
appellant is dead, we are unable to exercise most of the
functions assigned by this section to a Court of Appeal.
We cannot hear the appellant. We cannot enhance any
sentence of imprisonment. We might enhance a fine; but,
by so doing, we should only be punishing an innocent
person, who has had no орportunity of being heard. We
cannot order the appellant to be re-tried. It being,
therefore, impossible for us to deal with the appeal
thoroughly, I do not think that we ought to "peruse the
proceedings" for the purpose of forming an opinion on
the facts, and on the chance that we may thereupon find
some ground for interfering on behalf of the convict, or
rather of his representative......."
Westropp, C.J. - ".......It is true that the fine, which is
leviable out of moveable property only of the convict
(Criminal Procedure Code, section 307, Reg. v. Lállá
Kárwar) continues to be so leviable after his death (Penal
2025:KER:68464
Code, section 70), and, therefore, his representatives or
legatees, as the case may be, are, if the fine have been
wrongfully imposed, injuriously affected after his death
by the sentence which so imposed the fine, and have an
interest in continuing the appeal which he had instituted
in his life-time. There is not, however, so far as I can
perceive, any authority given, either expressly or by
direct implication, to them to continue such an appeal, or
to bring a new appeal. The Criminal Procedure Code has
not made any provision for the continuance of the appeal
either by the heir, or devisee, or executor of the deceased
convict, or by any other person. The High Court cannot
itself assume the position of the appellant and conduct the
appeal, and has not power conferred upon it to depute
any other person to do so. It has been frequently held in
England that an appeal lies only where it is given by
statute, expressly or by inevitable implication, and in this
respect differs from a certiorari, which is a common law
right, and always lies, unless it be expressly taken
away....."
It is clear from the decision of the High Court of Bombay in
Imperatrix (supra) that the whole gamut of the appellate power
of the High Court is not available to be exercised after the
appellant/accused dies pending the appeal. Surya Baksh Singh
(supra) is an authority for the proposition that the right to
continue an appeal after the death of the appellant/accused is a
right that flows from the provisions of Section 394 Cr.P.C./435
BNSS. Since the jurisdiction of the appellate court has to be
specifically invoked, and when the near relatives have expressed
that they do not wish to contest the sentence of fine, I see no
2025:KER:68464
principle of law that would be served by requiring the appellate
court to consider the appeal on the merits. As already observed,
the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above make it clear
that it is only to permit the near relatives to contest the fine which
constitutes a charge on the estate of the deceased-accused, that
provision has been made to enable the continuation of the appeal
by the near relatives. The judicial resources in this country are
scarce. It would not be in the public interest to require the
consideration of this appeal on the merits in the circumstances
noted above. For all the above reasons, this Court holds as
follows:-
(i) The death of the appellant/accused in an appeal against a
composite sentence of imprisonment and fine does not abate on
the death of the appellant.
(ii) On being informed of the death of the appellant in an
appeal against a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the
appellate court shall allow the near relatives of the deceased
appellant to contest the matter, if necessary, by directing notice of
the appeal to be given to them through appropriate means.
(iii) If the near relatives of the appellant do not come forward
to contest the appeal, the appellate court shall proceed to decide
the matter on the merits. The appellate court may, at its discretion,
2025:KER:68464
appoint an amicus curiae or state brief.
(iv) If the appellate court is informed that the near relatives do
not wish to contest the appeal for any reason, the appellate court
shall dismiss the appeal as abated (see note below).
(v) The decision of the Full Bench in Pazhani (supra) to the
extent that it holds that where the near relatives of the deceased
appellant/accused do not come forward, the appeal need not be
decided on merits and shall be consigned to the records is no
longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Ramesan (supra).
In light of the findings, this appeal will stand dismissed as
abated.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
____________________________
Note: Ramesan (supra) was a case where the legal representatives of the
deceased appellant had not been given any opportunity to contest the
appeal, and the appeal had been decided on the merits by the High Court.
The contention of the legal representatives that the appeal should have been
dismissed as abated and should not have been decided on merits was
rejected on an analysis of the statutory provisions and the precedents. In
Ramesan (supra), the legal representatives had no case that they were not
contesting the appeal to the extent of the fine. However, as already noticed,
this is a case where the legal representatives have specifically informed this
Court that they do not wish to contest the appeal for the purpose of setting
aside the sentence of fine. In other words, this is a case where the legal
representatives are accepting the sentence of fine on the deceased appellant.
