Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 581 (KER)

Moly v. State of Kerala

2006-08-31

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, V.RAMKUMAR

body2006
Judgment :- V. Ramkumar, J. This is an appeal filed under S.374 (2) Cr.P.C. by one Chennapoyil Moly who claims herself to be the wife of the accused (Attupurath Benny) in S.C.No.199/2003 before the Special Judge at Thalasssery for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The aforementioned accused was convicted for offences punishable under Ss.376 and 506 (ii) I.P.C., read with S.3(2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under S.376 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three years under S.506(ii) I.P.C. and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and on default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three years under S.3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of, Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a direction to pay 2/3 of the fine amount to the victim. The substantive sentence of imprisonment was directed to run concurrently. It is the said judgment which, is assailed in this appeal filed by a woman who claims herself to be the wife of the accused. 3. The accused had died after the judgment of the court below and before the filing of this appeal. S.394 Cr.P.C. is attracted only in cases where the accused dies after the filing of the appeal. Sub-s.(1) of S.394 Cr.P.C. applies to an appeal filed against acquittal and the accused who is a respondent in such appeal dies during the pendency of such appeal. Sub-s.(2) of S.394 Cr.P.C. applies to an appeal filed by the accused against conviction and the accused dies pending such appeal. That situation is not available in this case. An appeal under S.374 (2) Cr.P.C. against a conviction can be filed only by the convicted person. Hence a person who claims to be the wife of the convicted person has no locus standi to file an appeal under S.374 (2) Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal is misconceived and incompetent. It, however, goes without saying that if the appeal is not maintainable the remedy of the appellant may be to file a revision by invoking S.397 read with S.401 Cr.P.C. Hence, without prejudice to the remedy of filing a revision, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.