JUDGMENT : 1. Case called out in the revised list. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. 2. Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1993 and the accused-appellant Devendra @ Gantha is on bail since 18.08.1994. 3. Order sheet of this appeal indicates that following orders were passed by this Court in this appeal on different dates:- 31.07.2014:- "Office report dated 30th July, 2014 records that the compliance report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly is still awaited. Let a reminder be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly to submit his compliance report positively by 12th August, 2014. List this matter on 12th August, 2014." 27.08.2014:- "In view of the report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, referred to in the office report dated 12.07.2014, we direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly to initiate proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the accused appellant Devendra @ Gantha and similarly to proceed against his surety under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Office of the High Court may supply the necessary information about the sureties of the accused Devendra along with the copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate positively by Monday i.e. 01.09.2014. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly may submit his compliance report by the next date. List on 16th September, 2014. 16.09.2014:- "Compliance report from the C.J.M., Bareilly is still awaited. Let a reminder be sent to the C.J.M., Bareilly to comply with the direction issued by the Court on 27.8.2014 and to submit his compliance report positively by 26th September, 2014. In case of default, he shall appear before this court on the next date with all relevant records. List on 26th September, 2014. Copy of the order may be forwarded to the C.J.M., Bareilly by the office of the High Court by tomorrow." 25.10.2016:- "In view of the office report dated 25.09.2016, C.J.M., Bareilly is directed to produce the appellant Devendra @ Gantha before this Court on the next date or to report his correct status. List on 24.11.2016. Office shall communicate this order to C.J.M., Bareilly and learned AGA within 48 hours." 24.11.2016:- "Sri S.K. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellant has informed us that he has no instructions from his client to argue this appeal. Record shows that the appellant Devendra is on bail. List on 24.11.2016. Office shall communicate this order to C.J.M., Bareilly and learned AGA within 48 hours." 24.11.2016:- "Sri S.K. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellant has informed us that he has no instructions from his client to argue this appeal. Record shows that the appellant Devendra is on bail. In view of above, issue non-bailable warrant against accused-appellant Devendra through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly returnable at an early date. In case the appellant surrenders and/or is arrested, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the undertaking that he shall appear before this Court on the next date fixed. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly shall submit his report along with the copies of bail bonds and sureties furnished by the appellant. List this Criminal Appeal on 9.1.2017." 09.01.2017:- "Heard Sri S.K. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellant has stated at bar that he has no instructions from his client to argue this appeal as despite several letters sent by his office to him, he has failed to respond. Record shows that the appellant is on bail. In view of above, issue non-bailable warrant against accused-appellant Devendra @ Gantha through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly returnable at an early date. In case the appellant surrenders and/or is arrested, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the undertaking that he shall appear before this Court on the next date fixed. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly shall submit his report along with the copies of bail bonds and sureties furnished by the appellant. List this Criminal Appeal on 15.2.2017." 4. When all the efforts to trace out the whereabouts of the appellant Devendra @ Gantha failed, this Court passed an order on 15.02.2017 directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly to proceed against the sureties of the appellant. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly reported that it was not possible for him to proceed against the sureties as the bail bonds furnished by sureties of the accused-appellant at the time of his being released on bail were not available as the same had been transmitted to this Court. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly reported that it was not possible for him to proceed against the sureties as the bail bonds furnished by sureties of the accused-appellant at the time of his being released on bail were not available as the same had been transmitted to this Court. We accordingly passed an order on 31.03.2017 directing the office of this Court to trace out the bail bonds of the sureties of the accused-appellant Devendra @ Gantha. However, the office vide its note dated 11.04.2017 has reported that despite careful examination of LCR, bail bonds of the sureties of the accused-appellant could not be traced out. 5. Thus, in view of the above, it is apparent that there is no possibility of procuring the presence of the appellant before this Court. It is obvious that neither his counsel Sri S.K. Kulshrestha who had appeared before us on few dates and expressed his inability to argue this appeal on behalf of his client in the absence of any instructions nor the appellant are interested in the disposal of this appeal and the appellant has abused the liberty of bail. 6. Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of this appeal in the absence of both the appellant and his counsel and wait perennially for the appellant to be traced out, if at all, and produced before this Court. 6. Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the hearing of this appeal in the absence of both the appellant and his counsel and wait perennially for the appellant to be traced out, if at all, and produced before this Court. 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 : 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 judgment 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), we do not find any good reason to adjourn the hearing of this appeal suo motu in the absence of the appellant or his counsel and we proceed to examine this appeal on merits with the assistance of Sri A.N. Mulla learned AGA and Smt. Manju Thakur, brief holder for the State. 8. 8. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 15.09.1993 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 244 of 1992, State v. Devendra @ Gantha, by which the appellant Devendra @ Gantha has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. and three years rigorous imprisonment u/s 324 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 9. The prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. and later testified by the witnesses of fact, produced by the prosecution during the trial is as follows:- The deceased Nityanand had his house situated in Mohalla 'Kot' Purana Shahar, P.S.- Baradari, District- Bareilly. The relationship between the informant, the accused and the deceased is shown by the following pedigree:- 10. The deceased Nityanand Misra, P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar, his wife P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi, their children Sonu, Monu and Jyoti lived jointly in one portion of the house belonging to deceased Nityanand Misra. The accused Pushpendra Kumar and Devendra alias Gantha lived in a room situated in the eastern portion of the same house belonging to deceased Nityanand Misra. The room in which Nityanand Misra and family of P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar lived was situated in the western portion of the house and there was also a verandah on the eastern side of the room occupied by P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar and his family. Deceased Nityanand Misra and P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar and his family shared a common kitchen and they ate together and lived jointly. The accused Devendra @ Gantha and Pushpendra lived separately and shared their common kitchen and lived jointly with each other. 11. P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar ran a shop of bicycle repair in Mohalla Kankartola. On 18.11.1991, P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar went to his house in the evening after closing his shop situated in Moh. Bazaria Kankar Tola. After having dinner, Nityanand Misra (now deceased), P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar, his wife Smt. Meena Devi and their children were sitting in the court-yard of their portion in Nityanand's house and talking to each other at about 9:15 P.M. The accused Devendra @ Gantha came out of the room occupied by accused Pushpendra and Devendra and started abusing his father Nityanand Misra and Smt. Meena Devi over the issue of partition of the said house belonging to Nityanand Misra. Thereupon, Nityanand Misra told P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar that they should go to police station to lodge a report as Devendra had lost his mind and then Nityanand (now deceased) and Jitendra Kumar stood-up and started to leave their house for going to the Police Station to lodge a report at the Police Station. 12. No sooner did Nityanand Misra and P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar had come out of the house they heard the screams of P.W.2 Smt. Meena. They immediately retraced their steps. His father remained at the entrance while P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar came inside the house and saw Devendra @ Gantha attacking Smt. Meena with a 'chhura' in his hand. P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar rescued P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi. She had sustained knife injuries on her person. 13. After Smt. Meena Devi was rescued by Jitendra Kumar, accused Devendra @ Gantha went after his father Nityanand Misra who was waiting outside his house and dragged him inside. Although P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar tried to intervene but in the meanwhile, accused Pushpendra Kumar also arrived there and exhorted Devendra @ Gantha to kill the old man as he was instrumental in not getting the partition of the house done. He also caught hold of P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar. In the meanwhile, accused Devendra @ Gantha stabbed his father by a knife (chhura) in his chest as a result of which Nityanand Misra fell down on the spot and died instantaneously. There was an electric pole outside the house of Nityanand Misra and the spot where Nityanand Misra was stabbed by accused Devendra @ Gantha was illuminated by the light of the electric bulb affixed on the pole. This incident was witnessed by P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar, P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi and their children. 14. The accused Devendra took to his heals and escaped from the place of incident. The accused Pushpendra also locked his room and ran away from the place of incident. In the meanwhile, a number of persons from neighbourhood gathered at the spot on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar and his wife P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi. 15. 14. The accused Devendra took to his heals and escaped from the place of incident. The accused Pushpendra also locked his room and ran away from the place of incident. In the meanwhile, a number of persons from neighbourhood gathered at the spot on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar and his wife P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi. 15. P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar got a report (Ext.Ka.1) scribed by Ram Prakash on the spot and after the report was read-over to him, he signed it and left the body of his father Nityanand Misra in the care of neighbours, who had reached the place of incident on hearing the noise, for the police station to lodge the F.I.R. of the incident. 16. P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar reached the police station at 9:45 P.M. on 18.11.1991 itself and filed the written report (Ext.Ka.1) at the P.S.- Baradari which was at a distance of two furlongs from the place of incident. P.W.5 Ezaj Mohd., Head Constable prepared the check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.4) and registered the case in G.D. vide G.D. rapat no. 698/91, at 9:45 P.M, on 18.11.1991 (Ext.Ka.5). P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi also went to the police station with her husband P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar. Her injuries were noted by Head Constable in G.D. Entry (Ext.Ka.5). Head Constable Ezaj Mohd. prepared "Chitthi Majrubi" (Ext.Ka.6) and sent Smt. Meena Devi to District Hospital, Bareilly for her medical examination. 17. Dr. D.S. Gangwar examined the injuries of P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi on 19.11.1991 at 1:30 A.M. He found one lacerated wound, one incised wound and two linear abrasions on the body of Smt. Meena Devi and prepared her injury report (Ext.Ka.3). 18. P.W.6 S.I. Deoki Nandan went to the spot immediately after registration of the case at 9:45 P.M. P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma, S.H.O.- Baradari, also reached the place of incident after receiving wireless message from P.W.6 S.I. Deoki Nandan. P.W.6 S.I. Deoki Nandan prepared the inquest report at 10:15 P.M. on 18.11.1991 on the direction of P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma, S.H.O- Baradari. He also prepared letter addressed to C.M.O (Ext.Ka.8), diagram of the dead body of the deceased (Ext.Ka.9), another letter addressed to C.M.O (Ext.Ka.9-A), filled up form no.13 of police i.e. challan lash (Ext.Ka.11), and letter addressed to R.I. (Ext.Ka.12). He also put the body of the deceased in sealed cover and prepared 'Namuna' seal (Ext.Ka.10). He also prepared letter addressed to C.M.O (Ext.Ka.8), diagram of the dead body of the deceased (Ext.Ka.9), another letter addressed to C.M.O (Ext.Ka.9-A), filled up form no.13 of police i.e. challan lash (Ext.Ka.11), and letter addressed to R.I. (Ext.Ka.12). He also put the body of the deceased in sealed cover and prepared 'Namuna' seal (Ext.Ka.10). After completing the inquest, he handed over the sealed body of the deceased Nityanand Misra to Constable Ram Nivas for carrying it to mortuary for getting postmortem done. He also handed over a copy of F.I.R. and copy of G.D. (Ext.Ka.13 and Ext.Ka.14) respectively to Constable Ram Nivas along with other documents to be taken along with the dead body of the deceased. P.W.6 S.I. Deoki Nandan also collected the blood stained and simple soil from the place of incident and put it into two separate sealed containers and prepared recovery memo (Ext.Ka.15). 19. P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma, S.H.O- Baradari inspected the place of incident and got site-plan (Ext.Ka.16) prepared by P.W.6 S.I. Deoki Nandan. 20. P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma, S.H.O- Baradari, recorded the statements of P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar, P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi, P.W.5 Head Constable Ezaj Ahmed which were written by P.W.6 S.I. Deoki Nandan on the dictation of P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma, S.H.O- Baradari. 21. P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma, S.H.O- Baradari, sent the case property of this crime duly sealed to Chemical Examiner, Agra under the letter of the then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly (Ext.Ka.18). Chemical Examiner sent his report (Ext.Ka.19) after examining the blood stained and simple soil, kurta, jacket, pajama, baniyan, full sleeve pull-over and half sleeve baniyan and found that there was human blood on all these articles. 22. P.W.4 Dr. C.S. Hayanki conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Nityanand Misra on 19.11.1991 at 2:00 P.M. and prepared her autopsy report (Ext.Ka.2). He found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:- An incised wound present on the left side of chest measuring 3.5 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep which was 10 cm below medial end of left clavicle bone and 2.5 cm away from mid line. Margins of the wound were found clean. 23. P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.17) against the accused persons after completing investigation before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. 24. Margins of the wound were found clean. 23. P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.17) against the accused persons after completing investigation before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. 24. Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly committed the accused for the trial of the accused to Court of Sessions Judge, Bareilly where it was registered as S.T. No. 244 of 1992, State v. Devendra @ Gantha, P.S.- Baradari and made over for trial to the court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly. 25. The learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, after hearing the accused on the point of charge and examining the material on record, framed charge u/s 302 I.P.C. against accused-appellant Devendra @ Gantha and u/s 302 and 324 I.P.C. against accused-appellant Pushpendra Kumar. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 26. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against accused, examined as many as seven witnesses of whom P.W.1 complainant Jitendra and P.W.2 Smt. Meena were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence while P.W.3 Dr. C.S. Hayanki, P.W.4 Dr. D.S. Gangwar, P.W.5 Ezaj Mohd., P.W.6 Deoki Nandan and P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma were produced as formal witnesses. 27. The accused in their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and alleged false implication. The accused Devendra @ Gantha examined two witnesses in defence. 28. D.W.1 Raj Kumar Sharma stated that his house was situated adjacent to the house of P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar and accused persons which belonged to his elder aunt (Tai) and there was no electric connection in that portion. He also stated that though there was electric connection in the portion belonging to his father, yet they had not given any electric connection to P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar. 29. D.W.2 Sri Ram Kishore Sharma, father of D.W.1 Raj Kumar Sharma, stated that there were two portions of his house. One portion was occupied by the wife of his elder brother Ram Chandra Sharma and there was no electric connection in that house. He stated that in his portion, there was electric connection and he never gave power connection to informant P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar or any other person. 30. One portion was occupied by the wife of his elder brother Ram Chandra Sharma and there was no electric connection in that house. He stated that in his portion, there was electric connection and he never gave power connection to informant P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar or any other person. 30. Learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the submissions advanced before him by learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted the appellant Devendra @ Gantha u/s 302 and 324 I.P.C. and awarded aforesaid sentences to him while co-accused Pushpendra was acquitted of all the charges. 31. Hence, this appeal. 32. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not. In this regard, we have very carefully perused the entire lower court record and heard Sri A.N. Mulla and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGAs for the State assisted by Smt. Manju Thakur, brief holder for the State. 33. In the instant case, the accused-appellant Devendra @ Gantha and his brother Pushpendra were tried for having committed the murder of their father Nityanand Misra. In addition, the accused-appellant Devendra @ Gantha was tried for having caused injuries to his sister-in-law Smt. Meena Devi, wife of the complainant Jitendra Kumar. The incident is said to have taken place on 18.11.1991 at about 9:15 P.M. inside the house of the deceased in village Mohalla Kot, P.S.- Baradari, District- Bareilly. Written report (Ext.Ka.1) of the occurrence in which Nityanand Misra was murdered by his sons Devendra @ Gantha and Pushpendra. Smt. Meena Devi had received severe injuries on the same day on 9:45 P.M. was lodged by P.W.1 complainant Jitendra Kumar at P.S.- Baradari, District- Bareilly. 34. After the registration of the F.I.R., the investigating agency galvanized into action and the Investigating Officer P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma reached the place of occurrence and after completing the necessary formalities, dispatched the dead body of the deceased and conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.6 Deoki Nandan conducted the inquest which commenced at 22:15 hours and ended at 23:30 hours. P.W.6 Deoki Nandan conducted the inquest which commenced at 22:15 hours and ended at 23:30 hours. The inquest report (Ext.Ka.7) and other related documents namely letter addressed to C.M.O (Ext.Ka.8), photo lash (Ext.Ka.9), specimen impression of scene (Ext.Ka.10), challan lash (Ext.Ka.11) and letter addressed to R.I. (Ext.Ka.12) were prepared by P.W.6 Deoki Nandan under the directions of P.W.7 Ishwar Chandra Sharma. 35. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by P.W.3 Dr. C.S. Hayanki on 19.11.1991 at about 2:30 P.M. who also prepared the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.2). The injuries of the injured Smt. Meena Devi, were examined at District Hospital, Bareilly and her injury report is on record as (Ext.Ka.3). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was committed against both the accused and was put up on trial. 36. We now embark to evaluate and appraise the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution framed against the accused-appellant for the purpose of ascertaining whether the same is reliable, trustworthy and inspires confidence. P.W.1 complainant Jitendra Kumar, has in his statement recorded before the Trial Court fully supported the prosecution case as spelt out in the F.I.R. and has narrated the prosecution case in detail. He has proved the written report (Ext.Ka.1) and further deposed that his wife was sent for medical examination with a constable and he had also accompanied her to District Hospital, Bareilly. 37. P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi, the injured witness in this case has fully corroborated the statement of P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar on all material points relating to the occurrence and has further stated that she was sent to District Hospital with a police constable. Her injuries were examined by a doctor at the District Hospital. 38. It is noteworthy that from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the presence of both P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time and place of occurrence is fully established. 39. P.W.3 Dr. C.S. Hayanki who had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Nityanand Misra and prepared the autopsy report, has proved the same as (Ext.Ka.2). He further deposed that he had noted one ante-mortem incised wound of 3.5 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity present on the left side of chest of the deceased and he had died as a result of aforesaid injury about the day before the conducting of postmortem. 40. P.W.4 Dr. He further deposed that he had noted one ante-mortem incised wound of 3.5 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity present on the left side of chest of the deceased and he had died as a result of aforesaid injury about the day before the conducting of postmortem. 40. P.W.4 Dr. D.S. Gangwar stated that he had found following injuries on the person of Smt. Meena Devi when he had examined her injuries at about 1:30 A.M. on 19.11.1991:- (1) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 2 cm x skin deep on top of head 11cm above left ear. (2) Incised wound 3 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep left side of butak outer and upper part. (3) Linear abrasion 6 cm long on the right lower jaw. (4) Linear abrasion 1 cm long on the left forehead just above left eye brow. 41. Thus, it has been proved from the statement of P.W.4 Dr. D.S. Gangwar and P.W.3 Dr. C.S. Hayanki that the antemortem injury of deceased Nityanand Misra was caused by a sharp-edged weapon like 'chhura' at about 9:15 P.M. on 18.11.1991 and injuries no.1, 2 and 3 found on the body of P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi could have also been caused by sharp-edged and pointed weapon and injury no.1 could have been caused by blunt weapon or by striking against the wall at about 9:15 P.M. on 18.11.1991. Hence, it has been proved that injuries were caused to P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi and Nityanand Misra on 18.11.1991 at about 9:15 P.M. and all injuries except one were caused by sharp-edged weapon. It has also been proved that anti-mortem injury found on the dead body of Nityanand Misra was sufficient to cause death. Dr. D.S. Gangwar has stated in his cross-examination that the injuries found on the body of P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi were neither grievous nor were sufficient to cause death. He also stated that the injuries found on the body of P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi could be caused by two type of weapons. He also stated that these injuries could be caused by one person, if he had two weapons or if blunt object was also blended with sharp-edged pointed blade. 42. He also stated that the injuries found on the body of P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi could be caused by two type of weapons. He also stated that these injuries could be caused by one person, if he had two weapons or if blunt object was also blended with sharp-edged pointed blade. 42. The time and place of the incident as spelt out in the F.I.R. have not been challenged by the accused-appellants and the same stand proved from the oral and documentary evidence on record, as well. 43. Thus, upon a wholesome analysis and critical evaluation of the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, and considering the fatal suggestion given by the defence counsel to P.W.2 Smt. Meena suggesting an alternate theory with regard to time, place, manner of assault and the injuries received by the deceased herself which was denied by her, the prosecution case virtually stands admitted to the defence. The prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused-appellant Devendra @ Gantha had first assaulted his sister-in-law Smt. Meena Devi with a knife on 18.11.1991 at about 9:15 P.M. and when the complainant tried to save Smt. Meena Devi, the accused-appellant dealt the fatal knife blow to his father Nityanand Misra on his chest which caused his instantaneous death. The medical evidence on record fully collates the ocular version which is unimpeachable, consistent and clinching throughout. The prosecution witnesses of fact have been subjected to gruelling cross-examination by the defence counsel but he has failed to elicit anything from them which may render their evidence either untrustworthy or unreliable. 44. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that from the evidence of D.W.1 Raj Kumar Sharma and D.W.2 Roop Kishore Sharma, it is fully established that there was darkness at the time of the occurrence and there was no source of light available at the spot which would have enabled the P.W.1 complainant Jitendra Kumar and P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi to identify the accused. We do not find any force in the aforesaid submission in the face of the admitted factual position that both the accused-appellants Devendra and Pushpendra are sons of the deceased Nityanand Misra, brother of P.W.1 complainant Jitendra Kumar and brother-inlaw of P.W.2 Smt. Meena Devi living in the same house with them and were so familiar with each other that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that no light was available at the place of occurrence, even then it was possible for the complainant and the other witnesses to have recognised the accused who had stabbed the deceased and caused injuries to P.W.2. 45. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly did not commit any error, illegality or perversity in convicting the appellant Devendra @ Gantha u/s 302 and 324 I.P.C. and awarding him imprisonment for life and two years rigorous imprisonment u/s 324 I.P.C. 46. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 47. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly is directed to make every possible effort to trace out the accused-appellant Devendra @ Gantha who is absconding and send him to jail for serving out the remaining part of his sentence and submit his report in this regard to the Registrar General of this Court within three months from the date of communication of this order to him. 48. Office is directed to communicate this order to Court concerned/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly for further necessary action. 49. There shall be however no order as to costs.