Bombay High Court

RAMDEO PARMAL THAKUR and ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ANR

Decided: 27 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is dismissed as abated due to the death of the appellants.

Summary

The appellants, Ramdeo Parmal Thakur and Sudarshan Prasad Shankar Thakur, appealed against a conviction under Section 304(2) of the Indian Penal Code and a three‑year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. The appeal was filed under Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2001. During the pendency of the appeal, both appellants died, as shown by the police report issued under a bailable warrant. The Court considered whether the death of the parties extinguished the right to continue the appeal. Holding that the appeal could not proceed after the death of the appellants, the Court dismissed the appeal as abated. The order effectively upheld the original conviction and sentence, but the appeal was terminated due to the appellants' demise.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal can continue when all appellants have died during its pendency

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 304(2)

Subjects

criminal appeal
abatement
death of parties
IPC 304(2)
rigorous imprisonment

Judgment

                                                           16-APEAL-594-2001.doc


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 594 OF 2001

1. Ramdeo Parmal Thakur
2. Sudarshan Prasad Shankar Thakur                 …Appellants
        V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                    ...Respondents


None for the Appellants.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.

                                 CORAM         :   N.R. BORKAR, J.
                                 DATE          :   27.08.2026.
P.C. :

1.                This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order
dated 06.06.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1990 by which the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants for
the offence punishable under Section 304 part II and sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.

2.                The report submitted by the concerned police station
pursuant to bailable warrant issued against the appellants shows
that both the appellants expired during the pendency of the
present appeal.

3.                In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed as
abated.


                                                     [N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Pramod S.Lakare
                                         1/1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…