JUDGMENT Hon'ble JAIN, J.- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Initially a charge-sheet was filed against three accused persons namely Ajmer Singh, Laxman Singh and Jeewan Singh. The trial Court framed charge against accused Jeewan Singh for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and against Ajmer Singh and Laxman Singh for the offence under Sections 302/111 and 307/114 IPC. 3. During .the pendency of the trial, the accused Ajmer Singh died and criminal proceedings against him abated. 4. The trial Court after completion of trial, acquitted remaining two accused persons namely Jeewan Singh as well as Laxman Singh vide impugned judgment dated 24.10.1986. 5. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan preferred DB Cr. Leave to Appeal No. 21/87 against Laxman Singh and Jeewan Singh. This court vide order dated 21st May, 1987 granted leave to appeal and thus appeal was registered against both the accused respondents. 6. During the pendency of this appeal, it was reported in the warrant of arrest that Jeewan Singh has expired and his Death Certificate was also enclosed and in view of it, this Court passed an order way back on 10th July, 1990 that appeal against Jeewan Singh is abated. The appeal remained pending only against accused Laxman Singh. 7. It is relevant to mention that substantive charge for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was framed against main accused Jeewan Singh and state appeal against him has already abated. So far as accused Laxman Singh is concerned he was abettor and charge under Sections 302/114 and 307/114 IPC was framed. Learned trial Court has already acquitted both the accused persons namely Jeewan Singh and Laxman Singh. 8. The question for our consideration is that when main accused has died and state appeal has already abated against him, then State appeal against co-accused against whom charge of abatement was framed, has become infructuous or not. 9. A similar controversy came for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Eknath Yeshwant Pager & Am. 8. The question for our consideration is that when main accused has died and state appeal has already abated against him, then State appeal against co-accused against whom charge of abatement was framed, has become infructuous or not. 9. A similar controversy came for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Eknath Yeshwant Pager & Am. ( AIR 1981 SC 1571 ) wherein main accused as well as abettor both the accused persons had been acquitted by the High Court, the main accused died during the pendency of the appeal before the Apex court and in view of that situation, Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal against the abettor as infructuous. The order of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) is reproduced as under:- "It is stated by the counsel for the respondents that respondent No. 1 is dead. According to the prosecution, respondent No. 1 is the main accused and the second respondent was merely an abettor. Both were acquitted by the High Court. Hence this appeal to this Court. Since tile appeal abates against the first respondent on account of his death and the second respondent has already been acquitted, appeal against the second respondent becomes infructuous. The appeal is accordingly disposed of." 10. Since main accused Jeewan Singh had died and appeal abated against him. Respondent Laxman Singh is merely an abettor. Both were acquitted by the trial court. In these circumstances, in view of the above referred authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present appeal against abettor i.e. respondent Laxman Singh has become infructuous and the same is accordingly disposed of.