D. N. PATEL, J. The present appeal has been preferred under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26th October, 1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1993, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, further simple imprisonment of one month. The appellant has also been convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/, in default, further simple imprisonment of one month has been awarded. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the present case are as under :

On 8 June, 1992 at about 2-00 p.m., there was a hot altercation between the appellant husband with his wife Revaben. Accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablazed. Upon hearing screaming, neighbours came and she was taken to Civil Hospital, Bharuch, where, she was examined by doctor and as she was certified to be conscious, dying declaration was recorded, wherein, she had clearly stated that appellant poured kerosene upon her and set her ablazed. F.I.R. was also filed by her. A case history recorded by the doctor, P.W. No. 1 also involves the present appellant. On the basis of evidence collected during investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and Sessions Case No.

11 of 1993 was registered against him. Upon recording evidence, he was mainly convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is absconding since 6th December, 2000. An application was preferred in the pending Criminal Appeal for temporary suspension of sentence under Sec. 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16th October, 2000 had suspended sentence for a period of 45 days running from 22nd October, 2000 to 5th December, 2000 and enlarged the appellant on bail upon his executing personal bond in sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellant was also directed to report at Chanod Police Station on every 1 and 15 day of every English Calendar month between 11 a.m. to 5-00 p.m. Thus, the appellant had to surrender before the jail authority on 6th December, 2000, but he is absconding since then. Jail remarks of the appellant, tendered by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is taken on record of the case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jani submitted that initially also, the appellant was granted furlough leave for a period of 14 days from 24th April, 1996. At that time also, he was absconding and he was arrested by the police after 30 days, after completion of period of furlough leave of 14 days.

4. Initially, the appellant had engaged his private lawyer Mr. M. A. Kalathil. As Mr. Kalathil has expired, we gave a legal aid vide order dated 13th October, 2008 and learned Advocate Ms. Banna Dutta is appointed on his behalf. Despite this appointment, the appellant has not been available and is still absconding.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that when accused is absconding and he has no faith in justice delivery system and he has no faith in the institution, constituted under the Constitution of India, his appeal may be dismissed. Upon his surrendering to the jail authority or upon his arrest by police, he can prefer an application for revival of the Criminal Appeal.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is fundamental duty vested in the appellant, as enshrined in Sub-Art. (a) of Art. 51 A of the Constitution of India, to abide by the Cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document