Due to the passing of co-conspirators, the Supreme Court explained the effects of reducing the number of convicts below five while a conviction under Section 149 IPC is under appeal

Share on:

 The bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that "abatement" is unquestionably distinct from "acquittal," and that as a result, "the effect and impact of the reduction in the number of convicts pending an appeal due to the death of co-convicts is bound to be different from the effect and impact of the reduction in the number of accused/convicts on account of acquittal."

The court here observed that "The term 'abatement' or 'abate' has not been defined in Cr.P.C. In the said circumstances, its dictionary meaning has to be looked into.

 As relates to criminal proceedings going by the meaning given in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, abatement means 'the discontinuation of criminal proceedings before they are concluded in the normal course of litigation, as when the defendant dies. Thus, it can be seen that the meaning of abatement can only be taken in criminal proceedings as `discontinuation of such proceedings owing to the death of the accused/convict pending such proceedings.

Under section 302/149 IPC The trial court convicted ten accused, and they further filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court. Seven of them passed away, therefore as a result, The surviving appellants are Gurmail Singh, Kewal Singh, and Karnail Singh. the remaining appellants, had their appeals denied, and the conviction and sentencing were upheld.Kewal Singh also passed away while the Supreme Court was hearing appeals, and Karnail Singh had not joined the case. Thus, only in the case of Gurmail Singh did the appeal succeeds. 

One of the questions raised in this appeal was whether the fact that there were four convicts instead of five because of the death of the co-accused had any bearing or effect on the convict(s) who were still alive when it came to determining their vicarious liability under Section 149, I.P.C. There can be no disagreement over the idea that a decrease in the number of defendants in an appeal below five due to a co-acquittal defendant and a decrease in the number of defendants below five as a result of the co-death defendants are two separate and distinct events. According to the aforementioned decisions and the aforementioned provision, a person must share a common interest with another person(s) if they are five or older. Additionally, if the appellant passes away, the appealed sentence will no longer be carried out.

Furthermore, Whether the appellant's argument that his conviction under Section 302 and Section 149 of the IPC should be changed to one under Section 304, either Part-I or Part-II, read with Section 149 of the IPC, is admissible for review, the appellant was not charged with an offense punishable under Section 302 of the IPC simply put, and because he was found guilty under both Sections 302 and 149, the appellant is unable to contest his conviction.

The appeal was denied after the court addressed additional arguments made by the appellant against him.