In a criminal appeal against a conviction for dacoity under IPC Sections 395/397, the High Court dismissed the matter as abated because the sole appellant, Jaipal, had died approximately 25-26 years prior to the filing of this appeal.
The appeal was dismissed as abated due to the death of the appellant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1020 of 1992
Appellant :- Jaipal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
By way of instant appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.5.1992 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No.99 of 1990, State versus Jaipal and others connected Sessions Trial No.367 of 1990 State versus Prem Pal, under Section-395/397 I.P.C., Police StationHathras Gate, District-Algiarh, whereby, the appellant was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
From perusal of the report of C.J.M. Aligarh dated 12.3.2018 and 5.4.2018 and report of C.J.M. Hathras dated 28.2.2018, it transpires that sole appellant-Jaipal had died 25-26 years ago.
In view of above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as abated.
The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 20.9.2018
S Rawat
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal appeal by a deceased appellant should be dismissed as abated.
Jaipal
State Of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
