Punishment Should End During Lifetime Of Convict: Delhi HC
Kamal Gujral v. State & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 17 July 2023
Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 456/2022
🧾 Background of the Case:
The case involved a cheque dishonor matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused (revisionist), Kamal Gujral, had passed away during the pendency of the revision petition. However, the trial court had already convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine.
After his death, the legal heir filed a revision petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the conviction and sentence, seeking to quash the judgment passed by the trial court. The question arose whether the punishment and criminal liability survive the death of the convict.
⚖️ Key Issue:
Does criminal liability (particularly the sentence and fine imposed) survive after the death of the accused, especially in non-compoundable offences?
🧑⚖️ Observation by the Delhi High Court:
The Delhi High Court made a detailed observation regarding the philosophy of punishment and held:
“The fundamental concept of criminal jurisprudence is that punishment must end with the life of the accused. A dead person cannot be punished. Criminal liability is personal and does not extend beyond the life of the accused. Once the accused dies, all criminal proceedings, including sentence and fine, abate unless otherwise provided.”
🧠 Legal Reasoning:
Section 394 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) provides that every appeal (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall abate on the death of the accused. However, even for appeals against a sentence of fine, the Court may, at its discretion, abate the proceedings considering the circumstances.
In the present case, the Delhi High Court exercised its discretion and quashed the sentence and conviction, noting that punishment is meant for reform, deterrence, or retribution—but none of these can apply once the individual is dead.
Fines and sentences cannot be enforced posthumously, as criminal liability is not inherited or transferable.
📜 Important Legal Principles Reiterated:
Criminal law is individual-centric, based on guilt and mental state (mens rea).
Punishment serves no purpose after death, whether it is reformative, deterrent, or retributive.
Criminal liability dies with the person, unlike civil liability which may survive through legal representatives.
🧷 Relevant Case Laws Cited in the Judgment:
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254
The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings stand abated after the death of the accused.
Shankar Dattatraya Dhopte v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 5163
It was reiterated that criminal proceedings become infructuous after the death of the accused.
✅ Court’s Final Ruling in Kamal Gujral v. State:
Since the convict had died, the criminal revision petition was allowed.
The conviction and sentence were set aside.
The Court held: "A dead person cannot be made to suffer imprisonment or pay fine, nor can punishment serve any legal or moral purpose posthumously."
🔍 Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court's ruling reinforced a crucial tenet of criminal jurisprudence:
Punishment must end with the life of the convict, as its purposes—deterrence, reform, and retribution—cannot be served after death. Continuing criminal liability posthumously is both legally unsustainable and morally redundant.
RELATED Blog
0 comments