JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. 1. List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. 2. Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1988 and the appellant- Ramesh Chandra, who was granted bail by this court by order dated 25.01.1988, while admitting this appeal is ever since then, enjoying the liberty of bail. 3. A letter/report dated 14.11.2017 has been sent by C.J.M. Kanpur Dehat regarding appellant- Ramesh Chandra's whereabouts that on the given address, he was not present and on inquiry being made, it transpired that his property was attached 25 years ago and only vacant plot remained and his current whereabouts were not known, and his two sureties- Prem Singh and Raghuvir Singh- have since expired. 4. To cut a long story short, I do not find any prospect of the accused-appellant- Ramesh Chandra, 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. 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. 5. 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. 5. 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 : 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. 6. Thus, in view of the legal position propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 (supra), I proceed to examine this appeal on merits qua appellant- Ramesh Chandra with the assistance of B.D. Nishad, 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. 7. By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.01.1988 passed by the Special Judge D.A.A. VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, in Sessions Trial No.127 of 1986 (State Vs. 7. By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.01.1988 passed by the Special Judge D.A.A. VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, in Sessions Trial No.127 of 1986 (State Vs. Balister and another), arising out of case crime no.50 of 1986, under Section 394 IPC, Police Station- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat, whereby accused- appellant has been convicted and sentenced to 5 years R.I. u/s 394 I.P.C. 8 Prosecution story as unfolded by the record emanates from perusal of the first information report lodged by the informant- Bachi Lal- (P.W.1), resident of village- Kaklapur, Police Station- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat on 09.03.1986 at 11.45 A.M. regarding robbery being committed at his house in the night intervening 8/9.3.1986 with averements that it was around 1.00 A.M. in the night when one of the miscreants jumped into his house in the courtyard (angan) and caught hold of the complainant on his cot. Then the complainant threw him and grappled with him. He was accompanied by other miscreants, who also entered into the house of the informant and beat the complainant's wife Smt. Munni Devi and the other family members of the complainant's family (mother-in-law Ramkali and brother-in-law Rajendra Babu) and they looted certain articles- say- woolen quilt, woolen shaal, three dhotis besides some lady ornaments and lady wrist- watch. On alarm being raised, Shivanand of his village fired shot from his licensed gun, whereas the other villagers- Shantu, Ram Nath, Mewa Lal and others challenged the miscreants, but they made their escape good with the booty. It was alleged that in the light of torch and 'dibri', the present appellant- Ramesh Chandra Nai- of the same village was recognized, who committed the crime in question. 9. This written report was scribed by one Suraj Prasad and the complainant put his thumb impression on it. The report was lodged at the police station- Mangalpur, District - Kanpur Dehat at 11.45 A.M. under Section 394 IPC at Case Crime No. 50 of 1986. The written report is Ex.Ka.1. 10. On the basis of entry made in the Check FIR (Ex.Ka.2), a case was registered at Police Station- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat on 09.03.1986 at Case Crime No. 50 of 1986 u/s 394 I.P.C. and the relevant G.D. entry was made at G.D. entry no. 20. The written report is Ex.Ka.1. 10. On the basis of entry made in the Check FIR (Ex.Ka.2), a case was registered at Police Station- Mangalpur, District- Kanpur Dehat on 09.03.1986 at Case Crime No. 50 of 1986 u/s 394 I.P.C. and the relevant G.D. entry was made at G.D. entry no. 20. True copy of the concerned G.D. is on record as Ex. Ka.3. 11. Record further reflects that the injured on the complainant side, namely Pattoo, Smt. Munni Devi, Smt. Ram Kali and Bachchi were taken to the hospital and they were medically examined at Primary Health Center, Sandalpur on 09.03.1986 at 04.30 P.M., 04.50 P.M., 05.10 P.M. and 06.15 P.M., respectively. Their medical examination have been proved as Ex.Ka.4, Ex.Ka.5, Ex.Ka.6 and Ex.Ka.7, respectively. Detail of the injury reports shall be taken into consideration and discussed as and when context so requires. 12. After the case was lodged the investigation ensued, the Investigating Officer- Harbansh Narain Dwivedi- P.W.7- recorded statement of the witnesses and also sent the injured for medical examination at the aforesaid primary health center. The I.O. also visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.Ka.8. Besides, he also prepared memo of some 'dibri', which is Ex.Ka.9 and searched house of the accused and prepared the memo of the same which is Ex.Ka.10 & 11. Appellant was arrested by the I.O. on 10.03.1986 and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant Ramesh Chandra by the I.O. on 04.05.1986, which is Ex.Ka.12. 13. Pursuant thereto, proceeding of the case was committed to the court of Sessions. As a sequel to that, this case was made over for trial and disposal to the court of Special Judge D.A.A./VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat. Appellant was heard on point of charge and the trial court was prima facie satisfied with the case against the accused-appellant. Therefore, it framed charge against the accused-appellant under Section 394 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to the accused, who abjured the charge and opted for trial. 14. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the appellant examined as many as seven witnesses, of whom P.W.1 Bachchi Lal, P.W.2 Smt. Munni Devi, P.W.3 Rajendra Babu, P.W.4 Suraj Prasad are the witnesses of fact. Prosecution further examined P.W.5 Maqbool Ahmad, P.W.6 Dr. Mohd. Idris and P.W.7 S.I. Harbansh Narain Dwivedi as formal witnesses. 15. 14. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the appellant examined as many as seven witnesses, of whom P.W.1 Bachchi Lal, P.W.2 Smt. Munni Devi, P.W.3 Rajendra Babu, P.W.4 Suraj Prasad are the witnesses of fact. Prosecution further examined P.W.5 Maqbool Ahmad, P.W.6 Dr. Mohd. Idris and P.W.7 S.I. Harbansh Narain Dwivedi as formal witnesses. 15. Except as above, no other testimony was adduced, therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. 16. In turn, the defence did not lead any evidence, either oral or documentary. 17. Learned trial Judge after considering the case on its merit returned aforesaid finding of conviction and sentenced the accused-appellant to imprisonment for five years' R.I. for offence under Sections 394 IPC. 18. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court, the appellant has preferred the instant criminal appeal. 19. Bare perusal of the first information report itself is indicative of fact that appellant has been recognized on the spot by none other than the complainant/informant and after the incident occurred at 01.00 A.M. in the night of 09.03.1986, the report was lodged at the police station concerned at around 11.45 A.M. (same day) and the distance from the police station up to the place of occurrence has been described as 9 km. In view of above, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. 20. The very perusal of the various reports regarding injuries of several injured on the informant side obviously their medical examination was also done at the Primary Health Center, Sanddalpur at District - Kanpur Dehat starting from 04.30 P.M. up to 06.15 P.M. on 09.03.1986. Obviously, these reports have been proved by Dr. Mohd. Idris, P.W.6. He medically examined all the injured. Injury report of Bachchi Lal has been admitted to the defence and formal proof was dispensed with. It was exhibited and marked as Exhibit Ka-7. 21. However, the doctor witness has also clarified that these injuries could have been caused around 01.00 A.M. and duration of these injuries is about half day. The injury report of Pattoo was described to be in the shape of: (i) Abraded contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm. over outer of right upper arm 2 cm. above from elbow joint. 21. However, the doctor witness has also clarified that these injuries could have been caused around 01.00 A.M. and duration of these injuries is about half day. The injury report of Pattoo was described to be in the shape of: (i) Abraded contusion 6 cm. x 3 cm. over outer of right upper arm 2 cm. above from elbow joint. (ii) Abrasion 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. on lateral side of right wrist joint. (iii) Traumatic swelling 8cm. X 9 cm. on dorsum of left hand including thumb. Advise x-ray. (iv) Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 0.3 cm. which is 5 cm. above to medial malleolus of right ankle joint. Opinion :- In the opinion of doctor, mentioned injuries are simple, except injury no. 3 and caused by hard blunt object. Injury no. 3 is kept under observation and advised x-ray. Duration within one day. This injury report is Ex.Ka.4. Similarly, injuries of Munni Devi are as follows: (i) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep on right side of scalp 6 c.m. above from right eyebrow. (ii) Traumatic swelling on torminal and middle phalynx of left index finger. (iii) Double line contusion 16 cm. x 3 cm. on left back of chest. 14 cm. below injury angle of left scapula. (iv) Abrasion 3.5 cm. x 2 cm. on left patella. Opinion :- Above mentioned injuries are simple. Injury no.1, 2 and 3 are due to hard blunt object. Injury no. 4 is due to fraction against hard object. Duration within one day. This injury report is Ex.Ka.5. Similarly injuries of Ram Kali are as follows: (i) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep on left side of head. 9 cm. above from left ear. (ii) Abraded contusion in an area of 8 cm. x 6 cm. on the top of left shoulder. (iii) Traumatic swelling on right thumb. (iv) Traumatic swelling on terminal phalynx left middle finger. (v) Complaint of pain right deltoid region, but no obvious injury is found. Opinion :- Above mentioned injury nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are simple and caused by hard blunt object. Duration is within one day. This injury report is Ex.Ka.6. Nothing adverse has emerged out from the testimony of P.W.6 Dr. Mohd. Idrish that these injuries have been self-sustained or could not have been caused around 01.00 A.M. on 9.3.1986. 22. Opinion :- Above mentioned injury nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are simple and caused by hard blunt object. Duration is within one day. This injury report is Ex.Ka.6. Nothing adverse has emerged out from the testimony of P.W.6 Dr. Mohd. Idrish that these injuries have been self-sustained or could not have been caused around 01.00 A.M. on 9.3.1986. 22. In this view of the case, obviously the injuries of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses cannot be ignored and overlooked. Certain injuries of the aforesaid injured were kept under observation. However, no supplementary report has been brought on record. Presence of the injured witnesses on the spot cannot be doubted. There is no false motive suggested for false implication of the applicant as to why the informant was interested in ensuring his conviction. 23. Under the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate attempt on the part of the complainant to falsely rope in the accused-appellant in this case, while allowing the real culprit to go scot-free. 24. It is established principle of criminal jurisprudence that testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be thrown away merely because they are related to each other. Here in this case, testimony of the injured witnesses corroborates medical evidence and the testimony of doctor witness. 25. There is no case or circumstance either existing or emerging after contemplating various aspects of this case that injuries so suffered have been suffered in another incident or by another means. Certain latches on the part of the I.O. in investigation are gathered from the record, but those latches are natural and not substantial and which cannot effect the gravity of charge qua evidence on record against the appellant. 26. 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. 27. 27. 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 appellant for 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 IPC, which is just punishment and would meet the ends of justice. 28. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is obvious that this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 29. 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. 30. Let a copy of this order/judgment be certified to the court below forthwith for necessary information and follow up action.