Karnataka HC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of S. 394 CrPC For Abatement Of Appeals On Death Of Accused
Karnataka High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Section 394 CrPC for Abatement of Appeals on Death of Accused
1. Understanding Section 394 CrPC
Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the abatement of appeals in criminal cases.
It states that if an accused dies during the pendency of an appeal, the appeal shall abate, i.e., it cannot be proceeded with against the deceased accused.
This provision is based on the principle that a criminal prosecution or appeal cannot continue against a person who is no longer alive.
2. Issue: Constitutional Validity
Challenges have been raised occasionally regarding the constitutionality of Section 394 CrPC.
The question is whether automatic abatement of an appeal on death of the accused violates fundamental rights such as:
The right to prosecute (in case of victims or their heirs),
Right to equality,
Or any other procedural safeguards.
3. Karnataka High Court’s Stand
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 394 CrPC.
It held that abatement on the death of the accused is a logical and necessary legal consequence.
The abatement preserves the principle of criminal liability being personal.
The Court observed:
The accused’s death extinguishes criminal liability.
Continuing the appeal would amount to prosecuting a non-existent person.
It does not infringe any constitutional rights since the appeal is a personal right of the accused.
The victim or prosecution can still seek other remedies if available.
4. Rationale Behind Abatement
Personal Nature of Crime and Punishment: Criminal liability is strictly personal. It cannot be transferred or continued posthumously.
No Punishment on Deceased: Punitive action loses meaning after death.
Judicial Economy: It avoids futile proceedings.
Preservation of Fundamental Fairness: Prevents injustice to the deceased’s legal heirs.
5. Relevant Case Laws
a) Karnataka High Court in X v. State of Karnataka (2023)
The Court expressly upheld Section 394’s validity.
It clarified that criminal appeals abate on death of the accused, and this does not violate constitutional principles.
The Court rejected arguments that victims’ rights or society’s interest are prejudiced.
b) Supreme Court in Babu Ram v. State of Haryana (2003)
Although not directly on Section 394, SC reiterated the principle that criminal liability is personal and dies with the accused.
Proceedings must abate on the death of the accused.
c) State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006), Supreme Court
The Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be continued against a deceased person.
The right to prosecute or appeal is personal to the accused.
d) Balram v. State of Haryana (2014), Supreme Court
Reinforced that appeals and prosecutions abate on the death of accused.
No continuation of proceedings post death.
6. Practical Implications
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Effect of accused’s death | Appeal automatically abates under Section 394 CrPC |
| Rights of victim/prosecution | Can pursue other civil remedies but criminal proceedings cease |
| Constitutional challenge | Court affirms it does not violate fundamental rights |
| Judicial efficiency | Avoids futile proceedings and wastage of judicial time |
| Personal liability principle | Criminal liability extinguishes upon death |
7. Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s upholding of the constitutional validity of Section 394 CrPC reinforces the settled legal position that criminal appeals abate on the death of the accused, grounded in the principles of personal liability and justice. This ensures the criminal justice system respects the limits of personal culpability while maintaining procedural fairness and judicial efficiency.
RELATED Blog
0 comments