Introduction

Criminal law is either substantive or procedural. Substantive law determines the rights and liabilities whereas procedural laws define remedies. Indian Penal Code is substantive law and Criminal Procedure Code is procedural law. The procedure is to be followed for trying all criminals. The function of procedural law is to select proper jurisdiction, ascertain the proper Court, set in motion the machinery of justice and provide ways and means of making the Court’s decision effectual. The Code received the assent of the President on 25^th January, 1974. The Code brought into force on 1^st April, 1974. It was based on the 41^st Report of the Law Commission.

Procedural in nature

The Criminal Procedural Code is procedural in nature. It furnishes detailed machinery for trial of the offenders. The new Code provides the machinery for the detection of crime, apprehension of suspected criminal, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of suspected person, imposition of suitable punishment to the offender. The Code regulates the working machinery for investigation and trial of offences.

Abatement of appeals (Section 394 CrPC)

“(1) Every appeal under section 377 or section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused.

(2) Every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant: Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate.

Explanation.- In this section,” near relative” means a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister.”

Abatement of proceedings on the death of the accused

The ultimate object of the criminal proceedings is to punish the accused on his conviction of any offence. Therefore, the criminal proceedings abate on the death of the accused, as their continuance thereafter will be infructuous and meaningless. This position being self-evident the Code has not made any specific provision in this regard.

Ramesh (deceased) v. The State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2020

The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah referred to some earlier judgments of the Apex court, in context of Section 431 of the 1898 Code and observed:

In the instant case the Court specifically laid down that even if sentence of fine is imposed along with the sentence of imprisonment u/s 431, such appeal shall not abate. A similar expression is used under Section 431, i.e., “except an appeal from the sentence of fine” has been used in Section 394 CrPC. The appeal where accused was sentenced for imprisonment and for fine has to be treated as an appeal against fine and was not to abate and High Court did not commit any error in deciding the appeal on merits.

The Supreme Court has observed that, if the accused-appellant dies during the pendency of a criminal appeal against a composite sentence of imprisonment as well as fine, the appeal does not abate.

The Apex Court observed that the High Court ought to have given an opportunity to legal heirs of the accused to make submissions against the order of fine, which fine could have been very well recovered from the assets of the accused in the hands of the legal heirs.

Conclusion

Disposal of a case without trial not only saves time but also in certain cases helps in restoring harmony that cannot be achieved by conducting a full fledge trial. The death of an accused ordinarily abates a criminal action, including review proceedings pending at that time.