Anup Kumar, deceased, through his wife Smt. Naresh Kumari vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Justice R.B. Misra, J.—Heard Mr. Mohan Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused and Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Addl. Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

The present Criminal Appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 146 of 2006) has been preferred on behalf of the convict whereby the convict Anup Kumar was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence u/s 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine the convict was to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The convict was also sentenced to three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence u/s 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It appears that after imposition of such sentence and conviction, Anup Kumar/convict died, as such, for and on behalf of Anup Kumar convict his wife Smt. Naresh Kumari has filed criminal appeal being aggrieved mainly by the amount of fine imposed on Anup Kumar for his involvement for the offence u/s 302 IPC as well for the offence u/s 27 of the Arms Act. During course of hearing, question arose, when after conviction and sentence by learned Sessions Court the convict has died then whether Criminal Appeal for and on behalf of the convict-accused could be entertained.

Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Addl. Advocate General has invited our attention to the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in The State of Kerala Vs. Narayani Amma Kamala Devi, as well as judgment in Harnam Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, as well as towards the verdict of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Shanker Srivastava Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (Supreme Court).

As per the verdict above mentioned Criminal Revision even after death of the convict/accused could be entertained, more so, specifically in reference to the penalty.

In the present case though criminal appeal was preferred, however, present criminal appeal could be allowed to be treated as Criminal Revision in respect of the judgment dated 30.3.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 23-D/05/04 (S.T. No. 49/05).

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of records and after going through the evidence on record in exercise of our power in revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. the fine imposed on the convict/accused may be annulled. As such, we set aside the fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed in reference to offence u/s 302 IPC and the condition that in default of payment of fine convict to undergo simple imprisonment for one year also goes away. In the same manner fine of Rs. 1000/-imposed for offence u/s 27 of the Arms Act and the condition that in default of payment of fine the convict to undergo simple imprisonment for six months also goes away. Since in our considered view the fine imposed, above mentioned, is dropped and in the facts and circumstances since convict Anup Kumar has since died, as such, the conviction and sentence against him cannot be carried out. In these circumstances the Criminal Revision is dealt with accordingly with modification, above mentioned.

In view of the above discussions, the Criminal Revision is disposed of. In light of the directions made above, the Registry is directed to register the said Criminal Appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 146 of 2006) as Criminal Revision and for that needful has to be done.