HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2050 of 1988 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 1988 and the appellant namely Nanoo, who was granted bail by this court vide order dated 12.9.1988, while admitting this appeal is ever since then, enjoying the liberty of bail. 4. Vide order dated 18.11.2025 a coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:- "None has appeared for the appellant. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present. The present Criminal Appeal pertains to the year 1988 and is listed today under the caption of "Oldest Pending Cases In This High Court For Priority Hearing." As per office report dated 16.09.2025, appellant Nanoo is not residing at the given address. Issue notice to the sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C. through C.J.M. concerned. Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur is directed to trace the whereabouts of the appellant Nanoo and file an affidavit. List this appeal on 17.12.2025. Registrar (Compliance) shall ensure that the order to be complied with." Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Subodh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Nanoo .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) 5. Thereafter, again vide order dated 17.12.2025 a coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:- "List revised. None appears on behalf of the appellant. Vide order dated 18 November 2025, this Court had directed to issue notice to the sureties of the appellant through the CJM concerned. The report of compliance of service of notice to the sureties is still awaited. Learned AGA has submitted the instructions received by him from the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned, according to which the appellant is still not traceable and efforts are being made to trace him out. The concerned CJM is directed to comply the earlier order and send a report in this regard. Let non-bailable warrant be issued against the sole appellant. The CJM as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police, concerned shall ensure the execution of the non-bailable warrant against the appellant, forthwith. Put up this matter on 27.01.2026." 6. The office vide it's report dated 22.1.2026 has reported that in compliance of Hon'ble Court's order dated 17.12.2025, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur vide letter dated 16.12.2025 (Flag 'B') has reported that sureties of appellant Nanoo namely Amir Ahmad and Mohd. Ishaq have died. 7. To cut a long story short, I do not find any prospect of the accused- appellant- Nanoo, 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 the appellant notice to the sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C.. The question which arises before us is that whether this Court is bound to wait perennially for the accused- appellants 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 CRLA No. 2050 of 1988 2 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 : "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." 9. 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- Nanoo with the assistance of 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. 10. By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the Judgment and order dated 08.09.1988 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in S.T. No 506 of 1987 (State Vs. Nanoo and another) U/s 460 and 411 I.P.C. P.S. Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo 10 years R.I. and a sum of Rs. 2000/- in case of default further 6 months R.I. 11. The prosecution case in short is that during midnight of July 6/7, 1986 the complainant Somdutt Sharma and his family sleeping in their home and at about 11 to 12 P.M. in the night some miscreants entered in their house, CRLA No. 2050 of 1988 3 when complainant woken then he saw that three to four persons were searching out the articles in the house, then he raised alarm, on making alarm his brother and sister-in-law also woken. When his brother Ramesh attempted to intervene, the burglars attacked him and his sister-in-law with iron rods and sticks and before fleeing away took an H.M.T watch and two sarees. Though, the family identified one suspect Nanoo at the scene, the violence of the encounter proved fatal; Ramesh sustained severe head injuries and died while being taken to a hospital in Chandigarh. Following the attack the police initiated a criminal investigation under sections 460 and 458 I.P.C for house trespassers and causing death. The investigation progressed with the arrest of Inam on September 19, 1986 and a stolen watch was recovered from him. Following a formal identification of the property and the completion of the crime scene mapping, the Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. 12. The prosecution presented a total of eight witnesses in total: P.W.1- Somdutt Sharma- The complainant who reiterated the facts of the FIR and claimed that he identified the culprits in that light; recounted how his brother died while being taken to hospital and approved the written report as Ext. k-1. P.W.2- Smt. Sumitra- (wife of the deceased Ramesh Chand)- Supported the testimony of the earlier witness. P.W.3- Shivnandan ( Head constable): He stated that on the basis of the written report he prepared the Chik report as Ext k-2 and photocopy of the Indraaj in G.D. as Ext. k-3. He also approved the photocopy of the G.D entry as Ext. k-4 and panchayatnama -Ext k-7( as prepared by S.I. MP Singh). P.W.4- Som Prakash: This witness recovered the watch from Inam but in his testimony he also mentioned that the police officials had told him that the watch was recovered from him; he had not taken the same from him directly. P.W.5- S.I. Shri Madan Pal Singh- He stated that he initiated the proceedings and prepared the site plan as Ext. k-10. He also seized the blood stained vest of the deceased Ramesh as Ext. k-11. P.W. 6- Shri Madhukar Dwivedi: He stated that in oictober 1986, he was posted as the City Magistrate in Saharanpur. He testified that he conducted the identification proceedings of the stolen watch. He verified Ex-2 as the same property involved in the identification proceedings and confirmed the CRLA No. 2050 of 1988 4 accuracy of the record of those proceedings Ext. k-12. P.W 7- Shri R.N Sharma: He testified that he completed the investigation and submitted the chargesheet as Ext. k-15. He stated that on the night of 19 September, he arrested the accused Inam and recovered watch from him and prepared a recovery memo as Ext. k-13. He also prepared the site map of the recovery location as Ext. k-14. P.W.8- Dr. Subhash Chandra Moga testified that on July 7, 1986 he examined the injuries of Sumitra and prepared the same as Ext. k-16 and Ext .k-17. He had also conducted the post mortem of the deceased Ram Chand the report of the same has been submitted as Ext. k-18. The statement of the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations and Nanoo accepted that he knew Somdutt before and he had relations with the daughter of the deceased Ramesh and this was the reason for his false implication in this case. 13. Defense also examined two witnesses which are:- D.W.1- Yaseen (Cousin of Nanoo) who testified that Nanoo was his maternal uncle's son and that the police had picked up Inam two years ago and that he had sent a telegram to the police regarding this as Ext. Kha-1. D. W. 2- Latif( Father of the accused Inam) also testified regarding the police taking Inam from his home and produced a copy as Ext. kha-2 and stated that his son Nanoo had been falsely implicated because he loved the daughter of the complainant. 14. Learned trial Judge after considering the case on its merit returned finding of conviction and sentenced the accused Nanoo guilty of offence under Section 460 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment alonwith fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default in payment of fine six months further imprisonment. 15. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal. 16. Bare perusal of the record itself is indicative of fact, it is evident that the during the midnight of July 6/7, 1986 the complainant Somdutt Sharma and his family were woken by intruders breaking into their home. When his brother Ramesh attempted to intervene, the burglars attacked him and Somdutt's sister-in-law with iron rods and sticks and before fleeing away CRLA No. 2050 of 1988 5 took an H.M.T watch and two sarees. Though the family identified one suspect Nanoo at the scene, the violence of the encounter proved fatal; Ramesh sustained severe head injuries and died while being transported to a hospital in Chandigarh. Following the attack the police initiated a criminal investigation under sections 460 and 458 I.P.C for house trespass and causing death. The investigation progressed with the arrest of Inam on September 19, 1986 and a stolen watch was recovered from him. 17. Learned A.G.A. has submitted the judgement and order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffers from any infirmity, perversity or illegality, and therefore, same requires no interference by this Court. 18. Under the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate attempt to falsely rope in the accused-appellants in this case, while allowing the real culprit to go scot-free. 19. It is established principle of criminal jurisprudence that testimony of eye- witnesses cannot be thrown away. 20. There is no case or circumstance either existing or emerging after contemplating various aspects of this case qua evidence on record against the appellant. 21. 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. 22. 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 Section 460 I.P.C and sentencing them to ten years rigorous imprisonment, which is just punishment and would meet the ends of justice. 23. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is obvious that this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 24. The appellant is at large. The trial court is expected to leave no stone CRLA No. 2050 of 1988 6 unturned for ensuring arrest of the appellant to enable him to serve out the sentence imposed by the judgment of the trial court. 25. Let a copy of this order/judgment be certified to the court below forthwith for necessary information and follow up action. January 27, 2026 Dev CRLA No. 2050 of 1988 7 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad