Facts
The appellant, the sole accused, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2022 dated 08.11.2022.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2He filed the present criminal appeal under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2The sentence was suspended by the High Court on 14.12.2022.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died; the defence stated that the death occurred on 30.01.2026, while the prosecution produced a Death Certificate recording the date as 31.01.2026.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 3–4Issues
Whether the criminal appeal abated upon the death of the sole appellant during its pendency under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Whether any further adjudication on the merits of the conviction and sentence was warranted after the death of the sole appellant.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Law Applied
The Court applied Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for the abatement of criminal appeals upon the death of the accused/appellant, subject to the statutory exceptions.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Since the appellant was the sole accused and had died during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal could not continue and stood abated.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5The Court also noted the underlying conviction under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, but did not examine its merits after the appellant’s death.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2; p.3, para. 5Reasoning
The appellant’s death was established through the Death Certificate produced by the prosecution.
Source reference: p.2, para. 4As the deceased was the sole appellant and no surviving appellant remained to prosecute the challenge to the conviction, Section 394 CrPC required the appeal to abate.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Consequently, the High Court treated the appellant’s death as dispositive of the pending appeal and found no occasion to consider the merits of the conviction or sentence.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Holding
The High Court held that, owing to the death of the sole appellant, the criminal appeal abated under Section 394 CrPC.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1244 of 2022 was dismissed as abated, without any further adjudication on the merits.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Acts & Sections Cited
5 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733
Original Court PDF
NATARAJvsSTATE REP BY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
