Bombay High Court
MAUSIN SULEMAN SHIVANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal was dismissed as abated because the appellant had died during the pendency of the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Mausin S. Shivani, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for offences under Sections 397, 452 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. He filed a criminal appeal (No. 892 of 1998) challenging the conviction. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died, as alleged by his counsel. The respondent's counsel sought time to verify the death, and the court listed the matter for verification. Upon verification that no family members could be located at the appellant's address and accepting the counsel's statement, the High Court dismissed the appeal as abated due to the appellant's death.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the death of an appellant on a pending criminal appeal?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 392, 397, 452
Subjects
- criminal appeal
- abatement
- death of appellant
- IPC
- dacoity
- robbery
- procedural law
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA Date:
2026.08.28 4-apeal-892-1998.odt
17:44:33
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 892 OF 1998
Mausin S. Shivani …Appellant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent.
…………..
Ms Misbah Khan i/by. Mr. Amin Solkar for the Appellant.
Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabake, APP for the Respondent/State.
…………..
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 28.08.2026.
P.C. :
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated
27.11.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater
Bombay in Sessions Case No.326 of 1995.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 397 , 452 and 392 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and five
years respectively.
3. On 4.8.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during
the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant has
expired.
2. Learned APP seeks time to verify the said fact. At his
request, list on 28th August 2026.
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/2
4-apeal-892-1998.odt
4. Learned APP submits that attempt was made to verify the
statement, however, no other family member of the appellant is
residing on the address mentioned in the memo of appeal.
Accepting the statement made by learned counsel for the
appellant, the Appeal is dismissed as abated.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 2/2
Checking your session…