Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MS.S. versus SUNIL KUMAR AND ANR.

Decided
16 November 2015
Judges listed
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 77 · 2015 INSC 1038

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

By a judgment delivered on April 10, 2015, this Court 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 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.

pp. 77–78, margin H

2

In spite of service of notice, when the appeal was fixed 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.

p. 78, margin B

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. Accordingly, hearing of appeal was taken up and concluded on 13th March, 2015. The judgment was delivered by this Court on April 10, 2015.

p. 78, margin C

4

At that point of time it was not within the knowledge 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 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.

p. 78, margin E

5

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated April 10, 2015 already passed in this matter, has to be recalled, recording. the fact that the accused respondent No.1 had A expired before the appeal was heard out. Hence, this appeal had become abated.

pp. 78–79, margin G

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 Tripathy Appeal dismissed.

p. 79