ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. This appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2000 1 [the impugned order] rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, whereby the High Court reversed the judgment and order of acquittal of the trial court. 3. The appellant was charged with commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, together with the co-accused (his mother). The prosecution case was that the mother of the appellant sprinkled kerosene on the victim (the appellant’s wife), whereafter the appellant set the victim ablaze. 4. The appellant and his mother were tried jointly and as noted above, the trial court acquitted both of them. In appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal by the impugned order and convicted the appellant as well as his mother and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 5. Separate appeals were carried from the judgment of conviction and order on sentence before this Court by the appellant and his mother. 6. Criminal Appeal No.699 of 2001 preferred by the appellant’s mother succeeded. By judgment and order dated 10th September, 2002, this Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restored that of the trial court. Consequently, the appellant’s mother was set free. 7. In such judgment it was recorded that the appellant not having surrendered and filed proof thereof, his appeal stood dismissed for non-prosecution. The date on which such appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution is, however, not available. 8. Be that as it may, despite dismissal of his appeal for non-prosecution, neither did the appellant surrender nor did the law enforcing agency took step to secure the arrest of the appellant for him to serve his sentence. 9. More than two decades lapsed in the meanwhile. The appellant was ultimately arrested on 14th September, 2023, whereafter the instant appeal has been preferred through the Legal Services Authority. 10. On an earlier occasion, we had granted leave to the appellant to have his previous appeal restored. 11. Today, we are informed by Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the earlier appeal having been dismissed more than two decades back, the records have been weeded out. 12. Mr. 10. On an earlier occasion, we had granted leave to the appellant to have his previous appeal restored. 11. Today, we are informed by Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the earlier appeal having been dismissed more than two decades back, the records have been weeded out. 12. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, however, relying on the judgment and order dated 10th September, 2002 as well as decisions of this Court in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi V. State of Gujarat, (2023) 9 SCC 164 and Sahadevan & Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 , argues that the appellant is entitled to be treated at par with his mother who was acquitted by reason of the order of this Court. 13. Bearing in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances, we have entertained this appeal. 14. We have looked into the judgment and order dated 10th September, 2002 and find no reason to take a view different from the one taken therein while acquitting the appellant’s mother. For the reasons recorded in the said judgment and order dated 10th September, 2002 as well as on the basis of our own appreciation of the materials on record, we hold that the appellant is also entitled to be acquitted. Ordered accordingly. 15. The impugned order is set aside and the judgment and order of acquittal of the trial court is restored. The appellant be set free, unless he is wanted in any other case. 16. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.