BIPIN MAHAKUD Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1999 as well as Jail Criminal appeal No. 219 of 1999 the appellants have assailed the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, nayagarh in S. T. Case No. 27/19/51 of 97/95/94 convicting and sentencing them under section 302 read with 34 I. P. C.

(2.) BOTH the appeals were heard by a division Bench of this Court and both the hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench held the order of conviction to be unsustainable and accordingly set the conviction set aside. However, while Hon'ble Sri Justice P. K tripathy was of the opinion that the case had to be remanded Cor retrial Hon'ble Sri justice B. P. Ray was of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence had to be simply set aside. In view of such divided opinions, the appeals with the opinions of their Lordships, Hon'ble Sri justice P. K. Tripathy and Hon'ble Sri Justice b. P. Ray, have been assigned to me for opinion under Section 392 of the Cr. P. C.

(3.) I have gone through the lower court records and the opinions of my esteemed brothers, Hon'ble Sri Justice P. K. Tripathy and Hon'ble Sn Justice B. P. Ray. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State were also heard at length. Keeping in view the conspectus of the entire case, I also find that the impugned judgment and order is not legally sustainable and has to be set aside