HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 27 of 1982 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. 3. Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1982 and the appellant namely Babu, who was granted bail by the coordinate Bench of Court vide order dated 9.2.1982, while admitting this appeal is ever since then, enjoying the liberty of bail. 4. Vide order dated 13.2.2014 a coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order :- "Case called out in the revised list. No one is present to press the appeal on behalf of the appellant. As per the Office report dated 5.3.2013, the C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar vide his report dated 2.1.2013 has reported that appellant Babu son of Hemu has left the village Nirpuda, police station Doghat, District Baghpat 30 years ago and no one is aware about his present address. C.J.M. concerned is directed to issue non bailable warrant against the said appellant and his sureties to ensure the presence of the appellant before this Court on the next date fixed. List on 10th March, 2014. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the District Judge concerned for its compliance." 5. Thereafter, again on 23.9.2025 coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:- "1. List of old cases is being revised. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.P.Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Babu .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P .....Respondent(s) 2. No one appears on behalf of the appellant. 3. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present. 4. From the perusal of record, it appears that this Court vide order dated 02.07.2014, considering the fact that appellant, Babu, is not traceable, directed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar to send bail bonds of the appellant so that legal action can be taken against the sureties. 5. The last office report dated 23.05.2022 is available on record in which it is mentioned that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat has submitted his report regarding the living status of the appellant and submitted that the appellant has left his last known address and is not traceable. It is further mentioned in the aforesaid report that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzzafarnagar has also submitted his report that bail bonds of the sureties is not traceable and the entire record has been sent to the High Court. 6. Office is directed to send bailable warrant to the sureties of the appellant as mentioned in the bail bonds available in the trial court record. 7. List this case on 28.10.2025." 6. Thereafter, the office vide it's report dated 27.1.2026 has reported that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar vide letter dated 26.11.2025 (flag 'D') has reported that bailable warrants could not be issued against the sureties as relevant bail bonds are not available in Muzaffarnagar judgeship. Further it is reported that on careful examination relevant bail bonds could not be found in the trial Court record. 7. To cut a long story short, I do not find any prospect of the accused-appellant- Babu, who is absconding, being traced out and produced before this Court. It is apparent that he is not interested in the disposal of this appeal and has abused the liberty of bail by failing to appear before this Court despite non-bailable warrants issued against him and his sureties to ensure the presence of the appellant before this Court. The question which arises before us is that whether this Court is bound to wait perennially for the accused-appellant till the accused-appellant is searched, if at all, and produced before us and keep on adjourning the hearing of this appeal. 8. Faced with the aforesaid contingency and looking to the huge pendency of cases before this Court, I am not inclined to pass over this appeal. Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court, after a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions on the issue, has distilled the legal position into six propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgment delivered in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 : CRLA No. 27 of 1982 2 "19.1 That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits; 19.2 That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent; 19.3 That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so;" 19.4 That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgement of the trial court; 19.5 That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so; and 19.6 That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation." 7. Thus, in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga (supra), I proceed to examine this appeal on merits qua appellant- Babu with the assistance Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State. I have perused the lower court record and heard learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 8. By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the Judgment and order dated 26.10.1981 passed by the learned IV Additional District & Session Judge, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No.322 of 1981 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 147 I.P.C. for one year R.I, under Section 365/149 I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment, under Sections 304(II)/149 for Seven year rigorous imprisonment. 9. In nutshell, Genda, the informant and husband of Smt. Shafiqan, stated that earlier the appellant Babu had enticed away his wife from her father's house, regarding which a report had been lodged by her father Salimuddin. Thereafter, in night of 16/17.09.1976, Genda and his wife Smt. Shafiqan were sleeping in their house, about 14 to 15 armed persons came there and forcibly abducted Smt. Shafiqan. On alarm being raised, Sajaul and Babu, who were sleeping outside, along with other villagers namely Latif (P.W.5), Niboli (P.W.6), Chhota and others chased the appellant with torches. During the chase, the appellant fired upon them, as a result of which Sajaul and Babu sustained firearm injuries and died on the spot. The assailants thereafter fled away. CRLA No. 27 of 1982 3 10. On the basis of the written report a case was registered against the accused persons under sections 147,365/149, 302/149 I.P.C. The accused denied the allegations and claimed for fair trial. 11. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined a total of 8 witnesses as follows: P.W 1 Dr. A.K Gupta:- P.W.1 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of deceased Sajaul and Babu on 18.09.1976 and proved the post-mortem reports (Ex. Ka-1 and Ex. Ka-2). He found multiple firearm injuries on the bodies of the deceased and opined that the deaths were caused due to those firearm injuries. P.W 3 Genda (Informent):- P.W.3 – Genda, the informant and husband of Smt. Shafiqan stated that on the night of the occurrence about 14–15 miscreants along with the appellant came to his house and forcibly took away his wife. On alarm being raised, he along with Sajaul, Babu and other villagers chased the miscreants with torches. During the chase the accused persons opened fire causing the deaths of Sajaul and Babu. P.W 4, P.W 5 & P.W 6 – Supported the prosecution version regarding the occurrence. P.W 7 Head constable Lajveer Singh :- proved the earlier report (Ex. Ka-6) lodged by Salimuddin at P.S. Doghat under Section 498 IPC regarding the earlier elopement of Smt. Shafiqan by the accused Babu. P.W 8 D.S Lore (Investigating Officer) – Investigating Officer conducted the investigation of the case. He prepared the inquest reports, site plan (Ex. Ka-16), recovery memos of plain and blood-stained earth and inspected the torches of witnesses and prepared memo (Ex. Ka-17). He also recorded the statements of the witnesses during investigation. 12. Appellant denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity, that the occurrence had taken place in the night and there was no proper source of light on the spot, therefore the identification of the accused by the witnesses was doubtful and it is alleged that no witness had actually seen the accused committing the murder. 13. Learned trial Judge after considering the case on its merit returned aforesaid finding of conviction and sentenced the accused-appellants under Sections 147, 365/149 and 304 part-II/149 I.P.C and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal. CRLA No. 27 of 1982 4 15. Bare perusal of the record itself is indicative of fact, it is evident that the earlier the appellant Babu had enticed away his wife from her father's house, regarding which a report had been lodged by her father Salimuddin. Thereafter, in night of 16/17.09.1976, Genda and his wife Smt. Shafiqan were sleeping in their house, about 14 to 15 armed persons came there and forcibly abducted Smt. Shafiqan. On alarm being raised, Sajaul and Babu, who were sleeping outside, along with other villagers namely Latif (P.W.5), Niboli (P.W.6), Chhota and others chased the appellant with torches. During the chase, the appellant fired upon them. 16. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the appellant twice abducted the victim who was married lady by his muscle power, the said incident was witnessed by the villagers and prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution version beyond doubt. Moreover, the appellant Babu has neither cooperated before trial Court during trial and was absconded since after the occurrence nor has cooperated in disposal of the appeal before this Court as soon after getting bail by this Court vide order dated 9.2.1982 has again absconded and has abused the process of law. Moreover, the guilt of the appellant has proved beyond doubt. Thus, the learned trial Court has appreciated evidence and witnesses produced by the prosecution in right perspective, therefore, no interference in the impugned judgement passed by the learned trial Court is warranted by this Court. 17. Under the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate attempt to falsely rope in the accused-appellant in this case, while allowing the real culprit to go scot-free. 18. It is established principle of criminal jurisprudence that testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be thrown away. 19. There is no case or circumstance either existing or emerging after contemplating various aspects of this case qua evidence on record against the appellant. 20. The learned trial judge while considering the various aspects of the case and various specific facets regarding the commission of the crime and the incident itself has elaborated a well-reasoned and detailed judgment, scrutinzing and analyzing each and every vital aspect of the case and judgment of conviction has been recorded after proper scrutiny of the evidence and facts on record. 21. In view of above, it may be conveniently summed up that the trial Judge has taken into consideration various aspects of the case and has appraised facts and testimony of prosecution witnesses in right prospective and has rightly recorded finding of conviction and sentenced the appellants for offence under Sections 147, 365/149 and 304 part-II/149 I.P.C and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment, which is just punishment and would meet the ends of justice. 22. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is obvious that this appeal lacks merit and is CRLA No. 27 of 1982 5 dismissed accordingly. 23. The appellant is at large. The trial court is expected to leave no stone unturned for ensuring arrest of the appellant to enable him to serve out the sentence imposed by the judgment of the trial court. 24. Let a copy of this order/judgment be certified to the court below forthwith for necessary information and follow up action. January 28, 2026 Dev CRLA No. 27 of 1982 6 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad