LexBONDADA GAJAPATHY RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• '7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 251 BONDADA GAJAPATHY RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.] Criminal Trial-Appellant sentenced to imprisonment for life-Death during the pendencu of appeal-Heirs whether can prosecute appeal-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (Act 5 of 1898), s. 431, 435, 439-Constitution of India, Art. 136. The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the High Court for the offence of the murder of his wife. He was granted special leave to appeal by this Court. During the pendency of the hearing of this appeal the appellant died. After his death his sons and daughter applied to this Court for permission to continue to prosecute the appeal. It was pleaded by the legal representatives of the appellant that though that sentence of imprisonment could no longer be executed, it still affected the property of the deceased and the legal representatives were, therefore, interested in the appeal and should be permitted to continue it. The appellant, who held a high office in the Government of Andhra Pradesh had been Sl/spended during the investigation of the charge against him arid he was dismissed from serv1ce under certain service rules on his conviction. During this time the appellant had only been given a smti.11 allowance. On thes·e facts it was pleaded that if the conviction was set aside, the estate of the deceased would be entitled to receive the full salary from the Government. Held (Per Sarkar, J.): (i) Neither s. 431 nor the cases men- tioned can be said to apply to the present case proprio vigore, for the present is not an appeal under the code of criminal pro- cedure which is dealt with by s. 431 nor is it a revisional appli- cation like the one which came up for consideration in Pranab Kumar Mitra's case, while as for the English case, it is only of persuasive value. Pranab Kumar Mitra v. The State of West Bengal, [1959] S:uP.P· 1 S.C.R. 63 and Hodgson v. Lakeman, [1943] L.R. K.B. 15, d1stmguished. (ii) 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 representat!ves. If ! '.:e sentence affects that property, the legal representatives can be said to be interested in the proceeding and_ ~!lowed t<;> cont_ii:ue it. This principle applies in appeals, revlS!ons, and m petitions under Art. 136 of the Constitution. A sentence of fine no doubt affects the property. In the present case, however, the sentence was not of fine but of im- prisonment which on the death of the accused has become in- !ruct?ous. In t~e present. case the effect of the sentence imposed m this case. bemg set aside would not directly entitle the legal representatives to the salary. They will have to obtain necessary orders from the Government for the purpose. 1964 March 16 1964 Botodada Gajapathy Rao v. Stale of Amihra Prade•h 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19641 Held (Per Hidayatullah, J.): (i) This was an appeal against a sentence of imprisonment and an appeal of this character would normally abate on the death of the appellant because a criminal prosecution is concerned primarily with the punish- ment of rn offender and not with the trial of an abstract issue about the truth or falsity of a prosecution case. The same prin- ciple must apply to appeals after conviction, except in so far as .a judgment already rerdered touches assets which would come to the legal representative. In so far as personal punish- ment (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. Pranab Kumar Mitra v. The State of West Bengal, [1959) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 63, Pritam Singh v. State, [1950] S.C.R. 453, distin- guished. Hodgson v. Lakeman, [1943] L.R.K.B. 15, Baghis v. Rowes [1955] 1 Q.B.D. 573, referred to. (ii) The prlinciple laid down in Pranab Kumar Mitra v. The State of West Bengal and Another and in Pritam Singh v. The State has no application to the present matter because there is no analogy between an appeal by special leave and a revision under the. code. The present case is not a case where the legal representatives after the death of the offender have to meet the liability of a fine or are required to protect the a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.