Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Yeruva Sayireddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Supreme Court7 March 2022Aniruddha Bose · Vineet Saran

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

On the death of a criminal appellant during the pendency of an appeal, the appeal abates under Section 394(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless a near relative, as defined in the proviso and explanation thereto, applies to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal within thirty days of the appellant's death. An oral submission by an amicus curiae, who is not a near relative, cannot be treated as an application for continuance of the appeal, and therefore the appeal abates where no such application has been made by a near relative within the prescribed time.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

REPORTABLE 2022 INSC 1297 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.233 OF 2016

YERUVA SAYIREDDY APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

The appellant in this case was an accused who was

convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of his daughter-

in-law. The sentence was confirmed by the High Court and

hence, this appeal has been filed.

Admittedly, the appellant has died after being in

jail for about 12 years. As per Section 394 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on the death of the

appellant/convict the appeal is to abate. The proviso

thereof carries an exception to the effect that a near

relative may, within thirty days of the death of the

appellant/convict, apply to the Appellate Court for leave

to continue the appeal. The explanation to the said

proviso defines ‘near relative’ to mean a parent, spouse,

lineal descendant, brother or sister. In the present 2

case, there is no application for leave to continue the

appeal after the death of the appellant/convict.

Mr. Shikhil Suri, learned counsel appearing as an

Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court on behalf of the

deceased appellant/convict has submitted that this is a

very good case where there is every chance of the

appellant being acquitted and considering the intention

of the legislature in providing an appeal not abating

even after the death of the appellant/convict, his oral

prayer as an Amicus Curiae be considered as an

application for continuance of this appeal and appeal be

not abated.

The appeal is governed by the substantive provision

of law. Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:

“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 3

appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate.”

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.

………………………………………………,J.

(VINEET SARAN)

………………………………………………,J.

(ANIRUDDHA BOSE) NEW DELHI;

MARCH 07, 2022.

4

ITEM NO.1 Court 9 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 233/2016

YERUVA SAYIREDDY Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)

([OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION.] )

Date : 07-03-2022 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shikhil Suri, Adv.

Ms. Madhu Suri, Adv.

Ms. Jyoti Suri, Adv.

Ms.Nikita Thapar, Adv.

Ms. Vinishma Kaul, Adv.

Ms. Komal Gupta, Adv.

Ms. Mahima Aggarwal, Adv.

Ms. Nidhi, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.

Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv.

Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv.

Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeal stands disposed of as having abated in terms of the reportable signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

(ARJUN BISHT) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH) (ASHWANI THAKUR) (COURT MASTER (SH) (BRANCH OFFICER) AR-CUM-PS (Signed reportable order is placed on the file)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free