NANOOversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2050 of 1988

Nanoo
                                                                   .....Appellant(s)
                                       Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                             :    Subodh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)                            :    A.G.A.

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."
                                                               CRLA No. 2050 of 1988
                                   2


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
                                   3


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
                                 4


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
                                  5

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
                                 6


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
                                                                    7


                                    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
                                                                               (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad