Read Time: 04 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday disposed of an appeal as 'having abated' while noting that counsel appearing as an Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court on behalf of the deceased appellant(convict) could not be treated as his/her near relative under the provision of Section 394 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

As per Section 394 of CrPC, on the death of the appellant/convict, the appeal is to abate. However, the proviso to the section 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 instant case, one Yeruva Sayireddy was an accused who was convicted by the Trial Court for murder of his daughter-in-law under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The sentence was confirmed by the High Court and against that the instant appeal was filed before the top court. However, Sayireddy died after being in jail for about 12 years.

Advocate Shikhil Suri, an Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court, on behalf of the Sayireddy, submitted that "this was 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."

However, Court ruled that Suri could not be treated as Sayireddy's near relative for the purpose of continuation of appeal, a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose disposed of the appeal as having been abated. 

Case Title: Yeruva Sayireddy V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.