Muthu @ Muthuswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No.104 of 1977
Petitioner: Muthu @ Muthuswamy
Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No.104 of 1977
Judges: A.M. AHMADI & K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 24, 1992
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Practice and Procedure
Appellant convicted under section 304 IPC – On appeal by the State, High Court convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and dismissed the appeal of the appellant against conviction under section 304 IPC – Appellant filed separate appeals to the Supreme Court – His appeal against conviction under section 302 IPC dismissed for non-prosecution and became final – His appeal against conviction under section 304 IPC dismissed for having become infructuous.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
It appears that this appeal has become infructuous. The appellant was convicted under section 304 by the trial court. He challenged his conviction in an appeal taken to the High Court. The State felt aggrieved by his acquittal under section 302 and, therefore, it too carried the matter in appeal to the High Court. So far as the State’s appeal is concerned, there was a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of the High Court who heard the appeal and hence the matter was referred to a third learned Judge, who accepted the State’s appeal and convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC. Simultaneously, the appellant’s appeal against his conviction under section 304, IPC, was dismissed as having become infructuous. The appellant preferred two separate appeals, one against his conviction under section 302, IPC, and the second against the dismissal of his appeal challenging his conviction under section 304, IPC. His appeal against his conviction under section 302, IPC, however, came to be dismissed for non- prosecution by this Court and, therefore, his conviction under section 302 became final. In that view of the matter, his appeal against the conviction under section 304, IPC, does not survive. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as having become infructuous.
It appears that this appeal has become infructuous. The appellant was convicted under section 304 by the trial court. He challenged his conviction in an appeal taken to the High Court. The State felt aggrieved by his acquittal under section 302 and, therefore, it too carried the matter in appeal to the High Court. So far as the State’s appeal is concerned, there was a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of the High Court who heard the appeal and hence the matter was referred to a third learned Judge, who accepted the State’s appeal and convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC. Simultaneously, the appellant’s appeal against his conviction under section 304, IPC, was dismissed as having become infructuous. The appellant preferred two separate appeals, one against his conviction under section 302, IPC, and the second against the dismissal of his appeal challenging his conviction under section 304, IPC. His appeal against his conviction under section 302, IPC, however, came to be dismissed for non- prosecution by this Court and, therefore, his conviction under section 302 became final. In that view of the matter, his appeal against the conviction under section 304, IPC, does not survive. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as having become infructuous.
