PABITRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the appeals are arising out of a common impugned judgment, therefore, the same were analogously heard and judgment was reserved.

(2.) Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

(3.) It is relevant to mention that during pendency of the present appeals, the appellant No.5 in CRA No.10 of 1996, namely, Upendra Patel has expired. Therefore, CRA No.10 of 1996 qua the appellant No.5- Upendra Patel stood abated in the absence of any application under Sec. 394 Cr.P.C. by the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased-appellant. Hence, the appeal is considered in respect of other appellant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 in CRA No.10 of 1996. The appellant-Sukal Mallik separately challenged the impugned judgment and order by filing CRA No.24 of 1996.