The Court emphasized the reformative purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, allowing convicted individuals to benefit from probation over imprisonment due to the long delay in proceedings and lack of prior criminal history.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

Since both the appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment and involve the same cause of action, they were analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

The present appeals have been preferred by as many as twenty-six appellants who stand convicted by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, vide judgment and order dated 25.03.1995 passed in S.T. Case No.18/72 of 1993, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 /149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9 -B(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. On that count, each of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months. It is also apt to note that one of the co-accused, namely, Ramesh Jena, has been acquitted of all the charges by the learned trial Court.

2. The present appeals are pending since 1995. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, this Court requested Ms. Varsha Pattnayak and Ms. Anwesha Mishra, learned counsels, who are present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. They have readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Pattnayak and Ms. Mishra, learned counsels.

3. Heard Ms. Varsha Pattnayak and Ms. Anwesha Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. It is relevant to mention that during pendency of the present appeal, as many as nine appellants have expired in CRA No.319 of 1995, namely, the appellant No.1-Trinath Pradhan, appellant No.2-Prafulla Pradhan, appellant No.3-Baidyanath Pradhan, appellant No.8-Pabitra Pradhan, appellant No.9-Gadabari Pradhan, appellant No.13-Bhima Pradhan, appellant No.18-Udayanath Pradhan, appellant No.21- Brundaban Jena and appellant No.23-Arjun Pradhan. Therefore, CRA No.319 of 1995 qua the appellant Nos.1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 18, 21 and 23 stood abated vide order dated 31.07.2025 in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. by the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased-appellants. Hence, the appeal is considered only in respect of other surviving appellants.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:-

a) On 31.07.1991 at about 9.00 A.M., one Trinath Parida, son of Charan Parida of village Sanasireipur, was proceeding towards Banpur Bazar. While he was on his way, he was allegedly restrained on the village road by the accused persons, who had assembled in a body and were armed with lathis, guns, valli, kunta and hand bombs.

b) It is alleged that the accused persons accosted Trinath Parida on the village street and abused him in filthy language. When Trinath Parida protested against such behaviour, accused Pabitra Pradhan allegedly exhorted and instigated the other accused persons to kill him then and there. Acting upon such instigation, accused Trinath Pradhan is stated to have dealt a forceful blow with a lathi on the head of Trinath Parida, as a result of which he fell down on the ground crying aloud.

c) Hearing the commotion, the informant, namely Gandhi Parida (P.W.1), along with several co-villagers, namely Dolapani Parida, Bidyadhar Sundara, Abhimanyu Pradhan, Narayan Khuntia, Basanta Patra, Bibhuti Bhusan Sundara, Debaraj Sundara, Champati Baral, Kongress Parida, Madhusudan Patra, Pradip Baral, Kambhu Pradhan and Sudhakar Parida, rushed to