Criminal appeal abates upon convict’s death unless legal heirs seek substitution: HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a criminal appeal filed by a convict abates upon his death, unless his legal heirs are granted permission to continue proceedings within the stipulated timeframe. The court also made it clear that the execution of a fine, stayed before the convict’s demise, could neither be recovered from his estate, nor could the appeal be revived posthumously, unless duly substituted.
“The law has also provided a 30-day limitation for parents, spouses, lineal descendants, brothers, or sisters to pursue the appeal. Thus, if the legal representatives wish to continue the appeal, they may seek leave from the appellate court. If such leave is granted, the appeal can proceed and shall not abate. However, if leave is not granted, the appeal shall abate,” Justice Anoop Chitkara asserted.
The Bench also made it clear that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor its successor Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), mandated the continuation of criminal proceedings against a deceased accused.
The ruling came while adjudicating appeals in which the appellant-convicts had died before the final hearing. As their legal heirs did not seek substitution, Justice Chitkara considered the legal issue. “The question of law that arises is whether the appeals would abate due to the appellants’ death, considering that neither their close relatives sought permission for substitution, nor did the appellants deposit the fine amount,” the Bench observed.
The state counsels for Punjab, Haryana, and UT Chandigarh were heard, given the wider implications of the matter. Referring to the complexities of criminal prosecution, Justice Chitkara asserted the highly technical nature of criminal law and the risk of self-incrimination necessitated legal expertise.
Cross-examination was an acquired skill, requiring extensive practice and a deep understanding of evidentiary law. Analyzing admissions, omissions, and confessions, as well as distinguishing between admissible and inadmissible evidence, demanded legal proficiency. Legal representation was not mandatory in every case. But the right to legal aid was constitutionally and statutorily protected for those unable to afford counsel ensuring due process and access to justice.
Justice Chitkara asserted the issue before the court was not the appellant’s failure to engage legal counsel but their demise rendering the power of attorney legally inoperative. As a fundamental principle, only a living person could confer authority upon another to act on their behalf.
Justice Chitkara reaffirmed that a criminal appeal would abate upon the appellant’s demise unless his legal heirs sought substitution within the prescribed timeframe. Addressing whether legal aid counsel should be appointed in such cases, the court held that the unequivocal answer was in the negative. Citing the Latin maxim “Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona”, the court added that a personal cause of action extinguished with the individual.
Justice Chitkara, at the same time, clarified that this principle was not absolute. Legal claims related to proprietary interests or liabilities against the deceased’s estate remained enforceable posthumously, subject to statutory limitations. “If the legal heirs or representatives fail to substitute the deceased within the legally permissible period, the court is not obligated to appoint legal aid counsel to represent the deceased,” the court observed.
