CR.A/1126/1998 of HEMUBHAI LAGHARABHAI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 24 November 2003

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO

to see the judgements?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO

of the judgement?

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?

-------------------------------------------------------------- HEMUBHAI LAGHARABHAI

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:

1. Criminal Appeal No. 1126 of 1998

MR PP BANAJI for appellant

MR LR PUJARI, APP, for Respondent

-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL

and

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL

Date of decision: 24/11/2003

ORAL JUDGEMENT

(Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)

Instant appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, is directed against judgment dated October 7, 1998 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No.175 of 1996, by which the appellant is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default S.I.

for six months.

2. Mr.P.P.Banaji, learned advocate of the appellant, states that the appellant has expired on September 28, 2003 and that autopsy on his dead body was also performed on the same day by a panel of five doctors. It is further stated that after autopsy, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his brother Dhirubhai Lagarabhai Makwana on September 29, 2003. The learned counsel has produced relevant documents for perusal of the Court which are ordered to be taken on record of the case. The learned counsel of the appellant states that as the sole appellant has expired, the appeal be disposed of as having abated in terms of Section 394 of the Code. The statements made by the learned advocate of the appellant are not disputed by Mr.L.R.Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also produced xerox copy of certificate dated September 29, 2003, which indicates that the appellant has expired and that autopsy on his dead body was performed by a panel of doctors on September 29, 2003. The record does not show that within 30 days of the death of the appellant his heirs have been brought on record. Under the circumstances, the appeal will have to be disposed of as having abated in terms of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appeal, therefore, is disposed of as having finally abated on the death of the sole appellant.

���(J.M.Panchal,J.) (M.C.Patel,J.)

(patel)