JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. From the lions of Mohammad Munna Khan and womb of Smt. Khatoon (PW.2), three sons namely appellant Wahid, deceased Saleem and Jameel (PW.1) were born. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 29.6.1987 in the night at about 8.00 PM occurrence commenced in House No. 2358, Patwon Ki Gali, Telipada, Jaipur and appellant Wahid caused stab injuries with knife to his younger brother Saleem, aged 20 years, in the street after chasing him. The occurrence besides Jameel (PW.1) and Smt. Khatoon (PW.2), was witnessed by Sanjay Kishore Goswami (PW.4), Smt. Salma (PW.14) wife of the deceased, and Ajeet Kumar (PW.16). Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of statement (Ex.P.2) made by Smt. Khatoon (PW.2). Later during the course of investigation, mother having lost one son Saleem, in order to save another son appellant Wahid, resiled from the statement (Ex.P.2) made to the police on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.13) was registered. Jameel (PW.1) also turned hostile to save his brother and similarly, Abdul Latif (PW.7), maternal uncle (Mama) and Abdul Gaffar (PW.8), paternal uncle (Chacha) also resiled and have not supported the prosecution case. The trial Judge, on the basis of evidence led, vide impugned judgment dated 4.5.1988 convicted the appellant Wahid for offence under Section 302 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced him to undergo rigorous life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. Aggrieved against the above judgment of conviction and order of sentence, on 12.5.1988 appellant filed the present appeal. On 17.5.1988 appeal was adjourned and then came summer vacations. During summer vacations on 17.6.1988 a learned Single Judge of this court exercising powers of the Division Bench, suspended the sentence awarded upon the appellant and ordered him to be released on bail. Then started tactics on behalf of the appellant to avoid hearing of the appeal. As to how efforts were made to postpone the hearing of the appeal, we have given details in our order dated 13.9.2017. Our said order dated 13.9.2017 reads as under:- "The appellant, herein was tried by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. As to how efforts were made to postpone the hearing of the appeal, we have given details in our order dated 13.9.2017. Our said order dated 13.9.2017 reads as under:- "The appellant, herein was tried by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The said Court on 04.05.1988 held the appellant guilty of murder of his brother, namely Mohammad Saleem and convicted him for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Having convicted the appellant for the above said offence, the trial Judge, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. During summer vacations i.e. on 17.06.1988 an application for suspension of sentence was filed and the Vacation Judge on said date suspended the sentence and ordered that the appellant be released on bail. On 10.03.2010 when the case was ripe for arguments, Counsel representing the present appellant made a statement that he has no instructions to appear on behalf of the appellant and, thus, on 10.03.2010 a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order :- "The learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per report dated 09.03.2010 of the SHO, Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur City North received by him, the appellant is alive. Mr. N.K. Maloo as well as Mr. Babu Lal Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has taken back the file of the case from them after taking 'no objection', therefore, they are unable to argue the appeal. The appellant was granted bail by this court. Since the appellant is not present in person and learned counsel for the appellant contended that they have no instruction in the matter. In these circumstances, we have left with no option except to summon the appellant through bailable warrant. The appellant be summoned through bailable warrant in a sum of Rs. 10,000/-." In pursuance of the above said order dated 10.03.2010, bailable warrants issued could not be executed, as the appellant was avoiding the same and thus, on 28.04.2010 a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order :- "Learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per report made on bailable warrant it appears that the appellant is avoiding execution of bailable warrant, therefore, he may now be summoned through non-bailable warrant. Accused-appellant Wahid S/o. Mohd. Accused-appellant Wahid S/o. Mohd. Munna Khan may now be summoned through non-bailable warrant. A copy of non-bailable warrant may also be sent to concerned Superintendent of Police for execution." On 16.07.2010 fresh non-bailable warrants were issued. Meanwhile, the appellant filed an application for withdrawal of non-bailable warrants. On 30.07.2010 a Division Bench of this Court passed an order that the application for suspension of sentence shall be only considered, after the appellant surrenders in the Court, in pursuance of the arrest warrants. Subsequently, upon surrender of the appellant on 09.08.2010, he was released on bail on 10.08.2010. Now again start story to avoid the Court. On 27.06.2017 we directed Station House Officer, Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur City (North) to execute arrest warrants and to file an affidavit regarding the whereabouts of the appellant. On that day, none was present on behalf of the appellant. In pursuance of the above said order, on 04.08.2017 Station House Officer, Manak Chowk, Jaipur City (North) filed an affidavit. On the said date, appellant Wahid was present in person along with his Counsel Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma in the Court. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma, advocate on that day stated before us that he is representing the appellant and has already filed 'vakalatnama' in the registry. The order passed on 04.08.2017 reads as under :- "Affidavit filed by SHO, Police Station Manak Chowk, District Jaipur, is taken on record. Appellant is present along with his counsel Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma submits that he has already filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant in the registry counsel has prayed for an adjournment to argue the matter. We accept the prayer made by Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma, list the appeal for arguments on 8.9.2017, as prayed. Meanwhile Registry is directed to prepare the paper book, paper book shall be gathered by counsel for the appellant. Name of Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma be reflected in the cause list, as counsel for the appellant." We find from the record that no such 'vakatlatnama' has been filed. On 08.09.2017 the case was called twice, neither there was any representation on behalf of the appellant nor the appellant appeared in person. Thus, on 08.09.2017 we passed the following order :- "Case was called twice. None has caused appearance for the appellant. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 13.09.2017. On 08.09.2017 the case was called twice, neither there was any representation on behalf of the appellant nor the appellant appeared in person. Thus, on 08.09.2017 we passed the following order :- "Case was called twice. None has caused appearance for the appellant. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 13.09.2017. A note be circulated in the cause-list that Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma, counsel for the appellant shall remain present in the Court to argue the case. List on 13.09.2017, for arguments." A note has been circulated in the cause-list that Mr. Ashwni Kumar Sharma, advocate should remain present before this Court. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma, advocate today on second call has appeared and has submitted that neither any 'vakatlatnama' has been given to him by the appellant nor he has any instructions to pursue the present appeal and he is not aware, whether the appellant will engage him Counsel or not. We find that in old appeals where appellants are on bail every effort is made to frustrate hearing of the appeal. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, reported as (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 721, we would have proceeded to decide the appeal on merits after going through the record, but we are informed by Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma, advocate that the curfew has been imposed in the walled City of the Jaipur and, hence, it is not humanly possible for the appellant to appear in the Court. Mr. B.N. Sandu, ld. A.A.G. cum P.P. has informed us that today curfew has been relaxed from 06:00 A.M to 07:00 P.M. Considering the law and orders situation in the walled City, Jaipur, we post the present appeal for arguments on 18.09.2017. We may notice here that the present appeal pertains to the year, 1988 and, hence, no long adjournment can be granted. List present appeal on 18.09.2017." 3. On 18.9.2017 none appeared on behalf of the appellant before us even though the case was called twice and thus, we were constrained to proceed with the case in view of the law laid by the Supreme Court in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 . 4. List present appeal on 18.09.2017." 3. On 18.9.2017 none appeared on behalf of the appellant before us even though the case was called twice and thus, we were constrained to proceed with the case in view of the law laid by the Supreme Court in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 . 4. We ourselves have gone through the record, have read the evidence and heard Shri B.N. Sandu, learned Additional Advocate General-cum-Public Prosecutor, who is ably assisted by Shri R.S. Shekhawat, learned Public Prosecutor. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of statement (Ex.P.2) made by Smt. Khatoon (PW.2) before Vinit Kumar (PW.17), SHO, Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur. 5. Vinit Kumar (PW.17) in court deposed that on 30.6.1987 he was posted as SHO at Police Station Manak Chowk. On that day he received a message from Police Control Room, SMS Hospital, that Mohammad Saleem in injured condition has been brought to SMS Hospital on 29.6.1987 at 9.30 PM. Since information was received on the intervening night of 29.6.1987 and 30.6.1987, Vinit Kumar had sent ASI Surajmal (PW.10) to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Surajmal (PW.10) on the intervening night of 29.6.1987 and 30.6.1987 at 3.00 AM recorded statement (Ex.P.2) of Smt. Khatoon (PW.2). 6. Statement (Ex.P.2) of Smt. Khatoon (PW.2) w/o Munna Khan, caste Musalman, aged 60 years, r/o Telipada, Patwon Ki Gali, Jaipur, House No. 2358, when translated into English reads as under:- "On inquiry stated that in our house electricity meter has been installed. Charges of electricity bill were not deposited. Therefore, it was disconnected. Wahid installed another meter in his house. Before 20 days ago we have received bill of Rs. 400/- of our meter. Saleem told me that mother you pay the bill, I will not pay the bill. I said that half of the amount you should pay and half of amount I will pay. Today in the evening at 8.00 PM I was in the house of my sister. Small children came to me and informed that Saleem uncle (Chacha) had given abuses and he is quarrelling over the meter. I returned to the house. Saleem was taking food in his house at fourth floor. After taking food Saleem alighted from the stairs and stood there after seeing me. I said nothing to him. He asked when the meter will be installed. I returned to the house. Saleem was taking food in his house at fourth floor. After taking food Saleem alighted from the stairs and stood there after seeing me. I said nothing to him. He asked when the meter will be installed. I said that half of the amount you should pay and half I will pay and then meter will be installed. He said that he will not pay the amount and will damage the meter of Wahid. Then Wahid said why you will damage his meter, gather five persons. Saleem said he will not gather five persons. Then I stood in between them and told them not to fight. At that time I was given a push and I fell down. While fighting they came outside in the street. There Wahid caused a knife blow in the abdomen of Saleem. Then noise came that Saleem has received injuries, we brought him to hospital. Saleem on infliction of knife blow fell on the ground. I tied my Dupatta. Lot of blood had fallen on the ground. Then I saw that Wahid had left the spot. I and Umardeen brought Saleem to the hospital. He died on the way. We brought him to the Emergency, where the doctors declared him dead. Thumb Impression Khatoon RO&AC Surajmal 30.6.87" 7. On the basis of above statement (Ex.P.2), formal FIR (Ex.P.13) bearing No. 255/87 was registered at Police Station Manak Chowk for offence under Section 302 IPC. The above said FIR (Ex.P.13) was investigated. A report of investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 was submitted. The accused along with the report was committed to the Court of Sessions and was entrusted to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 8. The said court formulated a charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant Wahid. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. Prosecution in order to secure conviction of the appellant has examined 17 witnesses, namely Jameel (PW.1), Smt. Khatoon (PW.2), Gopal (PW.3), Sanjay Kishore Goswami (PW.4), Umardeen (PW.5), Abdul Rehman (PW.6), Abdul Latif (PW.7), Abdul Gaffar (PW.8), Harun (PW.9), Surajmal (PW.10), Nandram (PW.11), Ami Lal (PW.12), Dr. Vivekanand (PW.13), Smt. Salma (PW.14), Daya Ram (PW.15), Ajeet Kumar (PW.16) and Vinit Kumar (PW.17). Jameel (PW.1) being real brother in court deposed that he heard a noise that his brother Saleem has been caused injuries. Vivekanand (PW.13), Smt. Salma (PW.14), Daya Ram (PW.15), Ajeet Kumar (PW.16) and Vinit Kumar (PW.17). Jameel (PW.1) being real brother in court deposed that he heard a noise that his brother Saleem has been caused injuries. He along with his mother came in the street and saw that his brother having received injuries was lying in the street. They saw 2-3 persons going towards Sabji Mandi. The witness stated that he had seen the back of the persons running away. The witness was declared hostile to the prosecution and was confronted with his police statement (Ex.P.1). 10. Similarly, Smt. Khatoon (PW.2) being mother also turned hostile to the prosecution and was also confronted with her police statement (Ex.P.2) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.13) was registered. Gopal (PW.3) witness to recovery of knife also turned hostile to the prosecution. Umardeen (PW.5) who had attested the site plan, has also not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile to the prosecution. Abdul Rahman (PW.6) in whose presence blood stained earth was lifted and site plan was prepared, has also not supported the prosecution case. Abdul Latif (PW.7) maternal uncle (Mama) and Abdul Gaffar (PW.8) paternal uncle (Chacha) who have attested the inquest (Ex.P.7) have also not supported the prosecution case. 11. Similarly, Harun (PW.9) who had attested the inquest (Ex.P.7) has also not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile to the prosecution. Before we turn to the evidence of the eye-witnesses who have supported the prosecution case, it will be apposite for us to take note of the medical evidence. 12. Dr. Vivekanand (PW.13) on 30.6.1987 being posted as Medical Jurist in Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Saleem. In the post-mortem report (Ex.P.12) he noted following eight stab wounds:- "1. Incised wound 11 cm x 7 cm x bone deep placed obliquely on anterior aspect of right forearm upper portion with dark clotted blood present. The muscles and blood vessels are found cut. 2. Abrasion 4 x cm on latent aspect of right abdomen above iliac crest with clotted blood around it. 3. Incised wound 11 cm x 7 cm x bone deep placed obliquely on anterior aspect of right forearm upper portion with dark clotted blood present. The muscles and blood vessels are found cut. 2. Abrasion 4 x cm on latent aspect of right abdomen above iliac crest with clotted blood around it. 3. Stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm thoracic cavity deep placed transversely little oblique on left side front of chest 3cm below left nipple and latent to it on further examination wound has gone downwards in 4th inter costal space between 4th and 5th rib cutting the muscles joining them. The wound is going inward and upward direction cutting the pericardium 1cm x cm, then on further examination there is a cut cm x cm, heart muscle deep on left ventricle near junction of left and right ventricle at its upper portion pericardium is full of blood. 4. Stab wound 5cm x 2.5cm x thoracic and abdominal cavity deep placed on left side epigastrium region going downward and obliquely in between 9th and 10th ribs by cutting the lower border of 9th rib and upper rib border of 10th rib. Further the wound has cut down the muscle sheath and peritoneum cutting them. Further exploration shows a cut in middle of greater curvature of stomach size 3 x 2 cm going through and through to lesser curvature in middle. Size is 2 x 1 cm. The omentum is also cut down is present around wounds of both sides of stomach food particles seen present in abdominal cavity. 5. Stab wound 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep placed obliquely on area 5cm medial and below inferior angle of right scapula on right side of vertebral column. On exploration it is muscle deep not piercing thoracic cavity. 6. Stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x ? Thoracic cavity deep placed obliquely on left side of vertebral column on area 3 cm below obliquely downward and laterally (on left side) to injury No. 5 placed in 8th inter costal space. On further examination it is going obliquely downwards cutting pleura towards left lung. Further exploration shows laceration 2 cm x cm x cm on posterior surface of lower part of upper lobe laterally. 7. Stab wound size 4.5 cm x 1.5 cm ? On further examination it is going obliquely downwards cutting pleura towards left lung. Further exploration shows laceration 2 cm x cm x cm on posterior surface of lower part of upper lobe laterally. 7. Stab wound size 4.5 cm x 1.5 cm ? muscle deep on left side back of chest lower part 9 cm below injury No. 6 placed obliquely going downwards and obliquely in direction cutting the muscles of thoracic cavity. Spleen show cut wound size 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on infero lateral surface. Further exploration shows cut wound of size 2 cm x cm x cm on lateral aspect of left kidney at its upper border. 8. Stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x ? muscle deep on lower part of right side of back of chest near and below lower border of costal area. The wound is placed transversely. It is muscle deep only." 13. The witness further stated that on internal examination, he found 1000 CC of frank blood and blood clots present on left side of thoracic cavity. As per opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was shock as a result of injuries to vital organs of the body, such as left lung, left kidney, spleen and stomach and heart corresponding to injuries specified as No. 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the post-mortem report (Ex.P.12) and injury Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually. All injuries were ante mortem in nature. Sanjay Kishore Goswami (PW.4) in court deposed that on 30.6.1987 in the evening at about 8.00-9.00 PM he was passing through Patwon Ki Gali. When he reached near the shop of Doodhwala, he heard noise. He saw that Saleem was running away and he had kept one hand on his abdomen. He was chased by Wahid armed with a knife. Saleem was saying Wahid whether you will finish me, then Wahid said I will take away your life. Wahid caused many injuries with knife to Saleem. Saleem fell on the ground. While Saleem was lying, Wahid gave various knife blows on back and the abdomen of Saleem. In cross-examination the witness stated that he is living in the temple of Madan Gopal Ji. He admitted that they are four brothers namely he, Vijay Gopal, Ajay Kishore and Sanatan Kishore. Saleem fell on the ground. While Saleem was lying, Wahid gave various knife blows on back and the abdomen of Saleem. In cross-examination the witness stated that he is living in the temple of Madan Gopal Ji. He admitted that they are four brothers namely he, Vijay Gopal, Ajay Kishore and Sanatan Kishore. The witness also admitted that his brother Sanatan is also called Sona. The witness stated that he knew Gopal Singh who is tenant in their temple and is running school in the temple. The witness denied the suggestion that Wahid was running a cycle stand in the school and therefore, he has falsely implicated Wahid. Ajeet Kumar (PW.16) in court deposed that Sanjay Kishore Goswami (PW.4) is his nephew. On the night of the occurrence he alongwith Sanjay was going to Chaura Rasta, when they reached at the crossing of Patwon Ki Gali, they saw that Wahid was causing injuries to Saleem with knife. The witness stated that in his presence Wahid had caused 2-3 knife blows. The witness stated that then they ran away from the spot. 14. In cross-examination a similar suggestion was given to the witness that since Gopal Singh is running a school in the premises of temple Madan Gopal Ji where Wahid was running a cycle stand, therefore, they have falsely implicated the accused. 15. Material witness in the present case is Smt. Salma (PW.14) wife of the deceased Saleem. This witness stated in court that she was residing with her husband Saleem in the house at Telipada. In the night at 8.00-8.30 PM her husband was present in the house. Her mother-in-law was also there. Her husband started having conversation with his mother. Her husband told her mother-in-law that electric meter be got installed, otherwise he will demolish the meter of Wahid. Wahid is real brother of his husband. Wahid told her husband, why he will damage the meter. Then Wahid caused 12-13 knife blows in the abdomen of her husband. Saleem ran away in the street. He was chased by the accused and was caused knife blows. 16. In cross-examination the witness stated that she is aged 16-17 years and is mother of four daughters. The witness was confronted with her police statement (Ex.D.3) wherein it was not stated that Wahid had caused knife blows. The witness stated that she has not stated so because she became perplexed. 16. In cross-examination the witness stated that she is aged 16-17 years and is mother of four daughters. The witness was confronted with her police statement (Ex.D.3) wherein it was not stated that Wahid had caused knife blows. The witness stated that she has not stated so because she became perplexed. Surajmal (PW.10) in court deposed that he was posted as ASI at Police Station Manak Chowk. He reached SMS Hospital where he recorded statement (Ex.P.2) of Smt. Khatoon (PW.2) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.13) was registered. Constable Nandram (PW.11) had carried sealed packets to Forensic Science Laboratory. Amilal (PW.12) stated that on the intervening night of 29th and 30th June, 1986 at 5.00 AM he received an information that Saleem has expired. Dayaram (PW.15) stated that on 12.7.1987 accused got recovered one knife, one pant and one bushtit. Vinit Kumar (PW.17) being Investigating Officer proved various facets of investigation. 17. Having gone through the testimony of the witnesses, record of the case, we are of the view that presence of Salma (PW.14) widow of the deceased cannot be doubted. She was staying along with her husband. Thus, her presence in the night in the house is natural and probable. It has also come in evidence that before causing knife blow, there was an altercation between the brothers, namely Saleem deceased and Wahid accused-appellant regarding electricity meter. Such an altercation and verbal duel will attract the wife to the place of altercation. The witness stated that her husband had questioned her mother-in-law regarding installation of his electric meter. She has stated that Wahid had caused knife blows to her husband and her husband ran towards the street, where Wahid followed him and caused injuries. 18. Sanjay Kishore Goswami (PW.4) and Ajeet Kumar (PW.16) are independent witnesses. For going to temple of Madan Gopal Ji they have to pass towards the house of the accused. Defence to impeach their credibility, examined Gopal Singh (DW.3). Gopal Singh (DW.3) stated that in the premises of temple of Madan Gopal Ji he was running a school where Wahid was having a contract of cycle stand. Inter-se litigation between Gopal Singh and family of the prosecution witnesses Sanjay Kishore Goswami (PW.4) and Ajeet Kumar (PW.16), is no reason for them to falsely implicate Wahid. Gopal Singh (DW.3) stated that in the premises of temple of Madan Gopal Ji he was running a school where Wahid was having a contract of cycle stand. Inter-se litigation between Gopal Singh and family of the prosecution witnesses Sanjay Kishore Goswami (PW.4) and Ajeet Kumar (PW.16), is no reason for them to falsely implicate Wahid. We cannot loose sight of the fact that in initial version which was recorded in the night of the occurrence itself mother of the appellant had named Wahid appellant as accused. ASI Surajmal (PW.10) has specifically stated that Smt. Khatoon (PW.2) had made a statement on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.13) was recorded. The said FIR (Ex.P.13) reached the Ilaka Magistrate. In the present case, because mother Smt. Khatoon (PW.2) and brother Jameel (PW.1) have resiled from the prosecution case it cannot be said that Wahid has been falsely implicated especially when presence of Smt. Salma (PW.14) wife of the deceased cannot be doubted. Thus, the testimony of Sanjay Kishore Goswami (PW.4) and Ajeet Kumar (PW.16) lend corroboration to the testimony Salma (PW.14). Medical evidence also corroborate ocular version. 19. We cannot rely upon the testimony of Ramzan (DW.1) who has stated that 8-9 months ago before his deposition in the court, he has not seen any occurrence between Wahid and Saleem. The witness stated that on the day of occurrence Wahid was not in Jaipur. This witness was examined only to prove the plea of alibi. Similar is the statement of Nazirudin (DW.2) and Gopal Singh (DW.3) The plea of alibi was not raised during the course of investigation, nor the accused has raised such plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 Thus, there is no doubt that the appellant being elder brother has committed murder of his younger brother by giving numerous knife blows. He chased the deceased in the street who after first blow was running in the street, and caused further injuries. 20. Having examined the prosecution evidence threadbare, we are of the firm view that the trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant. 21. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. 22. As stated in the earlier portion of the judgment, the sentence awarded upon the appellant was suspended and he was released on bail. Having examined the prosecution evidence threadbare, we are of the firm view that the trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant. 21. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. 22. As stated in the earlier portion of the judgment, the sentence awarded upon the appellant was suspended and he was released on bail. We direct the trial court to issue warrant of arrest forthwith and take appellant Wahid into custody to undergo remaining sentence. Needless to say, the period already undergone by the appellant during the course of trial and after conviction shall be set off from the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court taking recourse to Section 428 Cr.P.C., 1973.