DEBENDRA BAG, Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above noted jail criminal appeals have been preferred by each of the convicted accused persons in S.T. No. 105/3 of 1995 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuchinda. Each of the Appellants in the same trial were booked for the offences under Section 457 and 395, I.P.C. While pleading innocence to the said charge Appellants contested against the case of the prosecution and on conclusion of the trial the trial Court as per the impugned judgment dated September 20, 1995 found the four out of six accused persons (the present Appellants) guilty of the said offences and convicted them thereunder. The trial Court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 457, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - each and in default to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 395. After their conviction since the Appellants filed appeals from the jail, therefore, such appeals have been given the nomenclature of Jail Criminal Appeals, it be noted here that Appellant Debendra Bag (Jail Criminal Appeal No 305/95) was granted bail by this Court on 30.11.1995 and on the basis of that order he is dr. bail and ret in jail. The rest of the Appellants as Mr. S.P. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant in jail Criminal Appeal No. 310/95 states have already suffered the imprisonment inside the jail.

(2.) SINCE the aforesaid four appeals are against the common judgment of conviction they have been listed for analogous hearing and disposal. In that respect, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants though advanced separate argument but all of them raised the same issue and similar contention while challenging the impugned order of conviction. Therefore, all the four appeals are disposed by this common judgment which will abide the result in all the appeals.

(3.) SO far as the case of the prosecution regarding the T.I. parade of the accused and the properties are concerned, the defence had taken a consistent stand that such persons and the properties were shown to the witnesses before such T.I. parade and therefore the T.I. parade of the persons and the properties lacks credibility.