- (1.) MR . Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate verbally submits and undertakes to file a memo stating that the counter case, i.e., S.T. No.48D of 1988 was disposed of with an order of acquittal and the State has not preferred any appeal against that order.
(2.) HEARD further argument at length and the judgment is as follows. Eighteen accused persons faced trial in S.T. Case No. 48D of 1988 on the charge of commission of offences under Sections 148/302/149 I.P.C. In addition to that, accused Narendra Rout was individually charged for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for the homicidal death of Sambaria - deceased and each of the other accused persons were separately charged either of the offence under Section 323 or 324 I.P.C. for causing hurt to the members of prosecution party. Some of such injured persons were examined as prosecution witnesses. The details in that respect is noted in the 1st paragraph of the impugned judgment. Amongst the accused persons, all of whom figure as respondents in this Government Appeal, accused -respondent No.8 Kurtibash Basantara, accused -respondent No.18 Dukhia @ Dukhabandhu Pradhan and accused -respondent No.3 Sukadev Rout, were reported to be dead and that has been noted in the order No.13 dated 5.9.2007. Abatement of the appeal was noted so far as those accused -respondents are concerned.
(3.) AFTER placing the judgment of the trial Court and the evidence on record, learned Addl.Government Advocate states that so far as the order of acquittal for the offence under Sections 148/302/149 and the individual charge for the offence under Section 323 and 324 I.P.C. are concerned, Government does not press the appeal in view of no illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court. Learned Addl.Government Advocate argues that appellant opposes to the order of acquittal of accused -respondent Narendra for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.;