MS.S. versus SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR.
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 77, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 77 
MS.S. 
v. 
SUNIL KUMARANDANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1581 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 16, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Abatement- Of-appeal- Supreme Court by judgment 
dated April 10, 2015 had convicted respondent No. 1/accused C 
uls. 376(1) /PC directing to take him into custody- Later the 
Court was informed that the accused had already died on 
October 14, 2012- Held: The factum of death of the accused 
was not within the knowledge of the Court at the time when 
the judgment dated April 10, 2015 was passed - The same o 
cannot be given effect to - Therefore, the judgment dated 
April 1 o, 2015 is recalled, dismissing the appeal for having 
become abated - Judgment - Recalling of - Penal Code, 
1860-s.376(1). 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal E 
Appeal No. 1581 of2009 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2007 of the 
High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur in Cr. Rev. No. 550 of 
2007. 
F 
Kanhaiya Priyadarshi for the Appellant. 
Shashi Juneja, C. D. Singh, Vanshaja Shukla for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. By a judgment delivered on April 10, 2015, this Court H 
77
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
allowed the appeal and convicted respondent No.1 for having 
committed the offence under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal 
Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven 
years and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-which was to be 
paid in its entirety to the appellant. However, the acquittal of 
B 
Respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 3(2)(V) of the 
Act was confirmed. Respondent No.1 was directed to be taken 
into custody forthwith to undergo the sentence as aforesaid. 
. 
i 
2. In spite of service of notice, when the appeal was fixed 
C for hearing from time to time, none appeared before this Court 
to represent respondent No.1. In these circumstances, it led 
this Court to appoint an amicus in this matter to appear on 
behalf of respondent No.1 accused. 
o 
3. The State of Chhattisgarh was duly represented by its 
counsel. The appellant was also represented through the 
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. However, the State 
and the appellant, none of the parties, drew the attention of 
this Court that respondent No.1/accused has already died. 
E Accordingly, hearing of appeal was taken up and concluded 
on 13th March, 2015. The judgment was delivered by this Court 
on April 10, 2015. 
4. At that point of time it was not within the knowledge 
F of this Court that respondent No.1/accused has died. 
Subsequently, when the matter was placed before us, we have 
been informed by the learned counsel Ms.
Shashi Juneja, that 
respondent No.1 Su nil Kumar has died on 14.10.2012. Since 
the said fact was not within knowledge of this Court nor the 
G attention of this Court was drawn to the said fact by the parties, 
including the State, it would be obvious that the judgment/order 
dated April 10, 2015 cannot be given effect to at this stage. 
5. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated April 10, 
H 2015 already passed in this matter, has to be recalled,

MS. S. v. SUNIL KUMAR 
79 
recording. the fact that the accused respondent No.1 had A 
expired before the appeal was heard out. Hence, this appeal 
had become abated. 
6. Accordingly, on the basis of the statement made by 
the learned counsel appearing for the State, the judgment dated B 
April 10, 2015, is recalled and this criminal appeal is dismissed 
for having become abated. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal dismissed.