Submitting a paper without your supervisor knowing, ask for help
Let's go through it one by one:


  How can I include his name?


I think he has already made his viewpoint quite clear, when you quote "I suggest you not to submit because you will burn your name and this is horrible works, etc. He then said if you insist on sending it don't put my name"

So, please don't do it. Any academician would be horribly pissed off if he saw his name appear on a scientific article which he himself deems "horrible", or in more polite language, unworthy of having his name on the author list. You are assuming some malicious intentions on his part, but please try to understand that he may have some very valid reasons for saying what he said. 

You are only starting out, and are yet to make a name for yourself, but presumably he already has made one. It is a well known fact in academia that respected researchers would prefer not publishing to publishing a mediocre work. That's because, ultimately in academia, a person is only as good as his work. An average work would be taken to mean that the person doing it also has average abilities. 

The last thing he would want is to have his reputation being smothered by an overzealous student, who went ahead and presented something prematurely, and puts it across as done by me under Professor ABC. Because then, it won't be about you and you work, it would be about Prof. ABC deeming a premature work as publication-worthy, which he never agreed to!

Thus, in all seriousness, since you are actually going ahead with the publication, you should do that without your supervisor's name.


  Now I am scared to tell him about the conditional acceptance. Should I tell him?


While you are not obligated to inform him, it is generally very bad etiquette to hold your supervisor in the dark about these things. Of course, revealing this will enrage him, of course you will draw flak. But that's still a better option than him discovering about this independently, or through other sources (he eventually will find out, one way or the other). And in that case, bridges will be burned completely. So, my advise would be, if you were courageous enough to actually go ahead and submit despite your supervisor telling you not to do so, you would burn lesser bridges by owning up the repercussions, rather than running away from it.   

Having said that, be prepared to hear a response to the tune of I'm not going to participate in amending the manuscript now, please do it on your own. Which is completely reasonable. If it is helpful to think of it this way, you will also benefit from the confidence you will gain from making the changes yourself, and getting it published. So, better do it yourself.

Finally, 


  (Should I) just refuse from doing the revisions and acceptance?


That would be extremely unprofessional behavior and will decimate your reputation. While manuscripts can be withdrawn, what exactly will you say is your withdrawl reason? 


"The results are erroneous", then they shouldn't have been submitted in the first place. 
"We realized the flaws later", that will present you as a person who saw an opportunity to publish and jumped the gun, particularly true if you do it as a single author. 
"I have some other commitments", that's again silly for a PhD student with the little commitments they have besides their work; you should have foreseen whether or not you would be able to attend the conference, and only then gone ahead with the submission. 
"Emergency situation excuse", well I have no words how to respond to that, and most likely the conference people would also not have any. 
"No excuse", that's extremely unprofessional. 


So, my advice would be, own up the publication, and please do not even contemplate this option.