JUDGMENT : P.C. Naik, J. - As both the appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 20.6.92 passed by the 1st. Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 10/50 of 1989, these were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1992 is by Ugri alias Ugrasen Naik who has been found guilty of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1992 is by Manguli Naik who has been convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 3. Appellant Ugri alias Ugrasen Naik and Manguli Naik along with eight other persons (who have been acquitted) were charged for having committed offences under Sections 323, 148, 302, 149, I. P. C. causing homicidal death of Rama Naik. They were also charged under Section 380, I. P. C. for committing theft of cashew nuts and household articles from the house of Kanduri Naik (informant). A separate charge under Section 302/34, I. P. C. was also framed against the appellants, Ugri alias Ugrasen Naik and Manguli Naik, for having committed the murder of Rama Naik in furtherance of their common intention. 4. According to the prosecution, there was a dispute between the accused-appellant Ugrasen and others on the one hand and deceased Rama Naik and his family members on the other, over a piece of land for which litigation was going on between the parties. It is alleged that on 21.8.88 between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., accused Ugrasen along with other accused persons entered the courtyard of Rama Naik (deceased) and asked him as to why Ac. 0.10 dec. of land in Biluagotha Chhak has not been given to him to which Rama Naik replied that as it was his land, he was entitled to remain in possession thereof. This incited and annoyed accused Ugrasen and Manguli who, along with other accused persons, all being armed with deadly weapons like Tenta, Farsa and lathis, attacked and injured Rama Naik and his family members, namely, Ghanashyam, Kokila, Debraj, Arnapurna and Aintha. This incited and annoyed accused Ugrasen and Manguli who, along with other accused persons, all being armed with deadly weapons like Tenta, Farsa and lathis, attacked and injured Rama Naik and his family members, namely, Ghanashyam, Kokila, Debraj, Arnapurna and Aintha. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant Ugrasen inflicted a tenta blow on the left side of the abdomen of Rama Naik and appellant Manguli inflicted lathi blows on the person of Debraj Naik (P.W.2). Therefore, the accused persons also committed theft of cashew nuts and other household articles from the house of Kanduri Naik (informant) and decamped from the spot. 5. After the incident, P.W.1- Kanduri Naik went to Brahmagiri Police Station to lodge a report. As the Officer in-charge was not available, the A.S.I. registered the case and took up investigation. After reaching the spot, he arranged for medical examination of injured persons, namely, Rama Naik, Ghanashyam, Debraj, Aintha and Kokila, prepared the spot map and also searched the house of appellant Ugrasen and other accused persons. The bloodstained clothes of injured Rama Naik and brickbats lying on the spot were also seized. Later, on receiving information that the injured Rama Naik succumbed to the injuries at the Headquarters Hospital, Puri, he held an inquest, seized the bed-head ticket from the hospital, and handed over the charge of investigation, to the Circle Inspector, Sadar Police Station, Puri who, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheets against the accused persons. As accused Ugrasen and three others could not be apprehended as their whereabouts were not known, they were shown as absconders. 6. The defence plea is one of denial. Though they have not examined any witness in defence, they have exhibited the F. I. R. and injury reports alleging that appellant Ugrasen and Manguli had, in fact, been assaulted by Ramesh and Babula on the date of incident about which they had lodged the F. I. R. and that they had not assaulted any one. 7. Twenty-five witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of their case. P.W.1-Kanduri Naik, the elder brother of the deceased, is the informant and P.Ws 2, 3 and 6 are the persons who had witnessed the occurrence. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the persons who reached the spot on hearing 'hullah' and P.Ws 10 and 11 are the sisters-in-law of deceased Rama Naik who were also present near the spot. P.W.1-Kanduri Naik, the elder brother of the deceased, is the informant and P.Ws 2, 3 and 6 are the persons who had witnessed the occurrence. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the persons who reached the spot on hearing 'hullah' and P.Ws 10 and 11 are the sisters-in-law of deceased Rama Naik who were also present near the spot. P.W. 15 is the scribe of the F. I.R., P.W. 17 is the treating surgeon who also recorded the dying declaration of deceased Rama Naik, P.W. 18 is the operating surgeon and P.W. 16 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rama Naik. P.W.21 is the medical officer who examined the injured persons and P.W.20 is the wife of the deceased and an occurrence witness. P.W.23 is the A.S.I. who took up preliminary investigation of the case. P.W. 24 is the Sub-Inspector of police who seized the cashew nuts and P.W.25 is the Circle Inspector of police who, on p completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheets against the accused persons. 8. On a consideration of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had failed to established the charge against accused Dusasan Biswal, Gurubari Dei, Rekha Naik, Gagan Naik, Aseli Bewa, Akhari Naik, Padmalay Naik and Bilash Naik and they were accordingly, acquitted. The charge against appellant Manguli under Section 302/34 I. P. C. was also to held to have not been established and he was accordingly acquitted of the said charge. However, placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 20, appellant Manguli was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced accordingly. The charge under Section 302, I.P.C. was held to have been established against appellant Ugrasen for causing homicidal death of Rama Nail and he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. Hence this appeal. 9. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants is assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the Court below erred in placing reliance on the prosecution case which was full of contradictions. It is also alleged that the Court below erred in holding that the death of Rama Naik was due to the injury when the medical evidence disclosed that he died because of peritonitis. It is also alleged that the Court below erred in holding that the death of Rama Naik was due to the injury when the medical evidence disclosed that he died because of peritonitis. It is further contended that as the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution witnesses with respect to the part played by the acquitted accused persons, it ought to have rejected their evidence in toto and acquitted the appellants also. Challenge is also made to the reliance placed on Ext-8, the dying declaration of the deceased which was made before and recorded by P.W.17 on 23.8.88. According to the appellants, the circumstances under which it was recorded casts serious doubt upon the authenticity thereof and hence, it ought to have been discarded. It is also contended that an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the prosecution for not explaining the injuries on the person of the appellants. 10. To begin with we may refer to the evidence of P.W. 16, the medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination and whose report is Ext-7. The injuries found on the dead body are: (i) Abrasions 2?" x ?" situation over medical aspect of the left leg 3" above the medical aspect of the ankle joint. Scab formed deep black in colour. (ii) The abdomen on its middle and lower part dressed with cotton and gauze, striped with adhesive plaster. I opened it and found that a wound 4" size surgical stitched by nylon rope at 11 places on the left paramedian line. On opening the stitches I found the said wound was healed up with out any gap. (iii) One wound irregularly stitched by nylon thread at two places on the left flank of the abdomen. I opened the stitch and found the wound was healed up without any gap. (iv) One opened wound on the right illiac region size ?" x ?" with a rubber drainage. (v) There were five stitched wound on the illium i.e. first portion of the intestine, 3 stitched wounds were thereon illeal lasentery. All were by catgot. Intestine locked grayish yellow and pale. There was gap on the wound. The intestine was flible. According to the doctor all the injuries were anti-mortem and the death might have been caused due to excessive haemorrhage land shock resulting from multiple wounds in the intestine and mesentery. All were by catgot. Intestine locked grayish yellow and pale. There was gap on the wound. The intestine was flible. According to the doctor all the injuries were anti-mortem and the death might have been caused due to excessive haemorrhage land shock resulting from multiple wounds in the intestine and mesentery. In cross-examination, he has clearly stated that the haemorrhage was prior to the stitching of the wounds which was done to check perforations; that peritonitis may occasion due to the infection and that due to the injuries, the deceased had lost more than 30% of the blood which was drained out because of the injury. The suggestion that death was not due to haemorrhage and shock, was denied. 11. P.W.22, at the relevant time, was posted as the medical officer, Rebana-Nuagaon P. H. C. and had first examined Rama Naik on police requisition on whose person he found the following injuries : (i) Punctured wound with clean margin 2 C.M. x ? C.M. x 2 C.M. in the left side of abdomen. (ii) Lacerated injury 1 C.M. x ? C.M. x ? C.M. in the back side of the base of the middle finger of left foot dorsal aspect. According to the doctor injury No.1 might have been caused by sharp pointed weapon and injury No.2 by a blunt weapon. Though the doctor states that the injuries appear to be simple, yet he had referred Rama Naik to Head Quarters Hospital, Puri for further examination. In cross-examination, P.W.22 stated that though injured Rama Naik was conscious when he was admitted to the P. H. C., he did not disclose anything to him as to how he had sustained the injuries. 12. P.W. 18- Dr. Manmohan Mohapatra was posted as a specialist in surgery in Headquarters Hospital, Puri. He stated that on 22.8.88 at 3.30 p.m. he was called by the Emergency Medical Officer to examine Rama Naik and on examination he found that the I patient had penetrative injury with peritonitis which according to him, was due to perforation of hollow visux. On opening the abdomen, multiple injuries were found in the distal part of the small intestine. It is also stated that one litre of blood had collected inside the perritorial cavity so there was need for blood transmission. However, the condition of the patient was serious and he ultimately died at 0.15 p.m. on 31.8.88. On opening the abdomen, multiple injuries were found in the distal part of the small intestine. It is also stated that one litre of blood had collected inside the perritorial cavity so there was need for blood transmission. However, the condition of the patient was serious and he ultimately died at 0.15 p.m. on 31.8.88. Nothing substantial was brought out in the cross-examination. This witness was recalled to be examined as a Court-witness. To a question, 'Whether the peritonitis caused perforation to the intestine due to punctured wound and it is sufficient to cause death of deceased Rama Naik 7' he replied: "The injuries found in the intestine and mesentery totalling number 8 were caused by the penetrating weapon and peritonitis caused subsequent as a result of the intestine injuries and any infection carried by the weapon of offence. Peritonitis, blood loss and the toxin liberated by the organisms causing peritonitis are collectively responsible for the death of the patient." On being cross-examined by the prosecution, he stated that the perforations which he detected were not due to any infection but due to penetrating weapon and that perforation was also not due to any round worm infection. In cross-examination by the defence, he stated that punctured and rupture wound cannot be caused by disease. According to him the injury in question was caused by a pointed weapon and in his opinion, the infection was caused to the patient because at the time he received the injury, the weapon must have infected substance and was not sterilised. On being asked, whether the single external wound was connected to the eight perforations found inside the intestine, he (P.W. 18) replied- "The 8 internal injuries were produced by the same weapon that produced the external injury." According to him, since there was no continuity amongst the 8 perforated wounds, the 8 perforations were caused by 8 separate contacts of the weapon. The suggestion that peritonitis can be caused by external wound, was denied. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the finding that death of Rama Naik was homicidal. 13. Accordingly to P.W.2- Debraj Naik, he was assaulted by appellant Manguli on 22.8.88. On the same day Dr. Bansidhar Mohanty (P.W.22) had examined P.W.2 and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Swelling 8 C.M. x 8 C.M. situated over the right knee. 13. Accordingly to P.W.2- Debraj Naik, he was assaulted by appellant Manguli on 22.8.88. On the same day Dr. Bansidhar Mohanty (P.W.22) had examined P.W.2 and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Swelling 8 C.M. x 8 C.M. situated over the right knee. ii) Bruise 2 C.M. x 1 C.M. over the left scapular region. In the opinion of the doctor, both the injuries were simple in nature and might have been caused by a blunt object. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants inviting our attention to Section 156. Cr.P.C. and Rule 158 of the Orissa Police Manual I submitted that a Police Officer below the rank of S.I of Police ought I not to have investigated this case. It was also urged that the investigation was not proper as failure to consider the F.I.R. (Ext A) lodged at Brahmagiri police station has prejudiced the accused persons. The record indicates that initially P.W.23, Chandramani Pradhan, the A.S.I of Police Station had taken up the investigation on 22.8.88. However, he handed over the charge of the case diary to the Circle Inspector of Police, Sadar Police Station, P.W.25 on 21.9.88 who completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons. What Prejudice' that has been caused because of the investigation by A.S.I. (P.W.23) is not stated. Although P.Ws. 22 and 25 have been cross-examined, we find that no substance has been brought out to discredit them or the investigation. May be the investigation was wanting in some respect, but that by itself cannot be a ground to throw away the prosecution case because the defence cannot get benefit from some errors/omissions on the part of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the contention that the investigation conducted by the A.S.I has prejudiced the defence, cannot be accepted. 15. It is no doubt true that the prosecution case with respect to other accused persons who are acquitted by the trial Court, has not been accepted, but this does not mean that the prosecution case against the appellants should be thrown away on that ground alone. If on a careful appraisal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses a case against the appellants is made out and the Court forms an opinion that part of the story is truthful, the Court can place reliance on this evidence notwithstanding that the said part of the story has been disbelieved. If on a careful appraisal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses a case against the appellants is made out and the Court forms an opinion that part of the story is truthful, the Court can place reliance on this evidence notwithstanding that the said part of the story has been disbelieved. This is because the maxim 'Falsus in unnfalsus in omnibus' is not applied by the Courts in our country. In a situation of this type what is required is a careful appraisal of the evidence to see whether or not it rings a bell of truth and if it does, it can be accepted. It is in this light that we shall proceed to consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses Nos. 2,3,4,5,6,11 and 20 These aforementioned witnesses have categorically stated that appellant Ugrasen was armed with 'Tenta' and appellant Manguli had a lathi. Each of the aforementioned witnesses mentions that the appellant Ugrasen dealt a 'Tenta' below on the abdomen of deceased Rama Naik. Though they were cross-examined, they could not be shaken on this aspect. P.W.2 clearly states that appellant Manguli gave a lathi blow on his right knee. The injury is proved by Dr. Bansidhar Mohanty, P.W.22. P.W.20 is the widow of deceased Rama Naik. She states that at the time of incident, her husband was lying on the verandah and she was sitting by his side. At that time the appellant Ugrasen entered the house and started abusing. When her husband got up, appellant Ugrasen gave a Tenta blow on the left side of his belly due to which her husband fell on the ground. She says that she did not witness anything more. In cross-examination she states that she did not see any sign of injury except the, Tenta blow on the body of her husband. To us, she seems, to be a truthful witness. Being the widow of Rama Naik, there can be no reason for her to shield the real culprit as it would be quite natural on her part to see that the real culprit does not go unpunished. Her version that except the assault on her husband, she did not see anything else, also seems quite reasonable, for, after seeing the injury being inflicted on the person of her husband, it was natural that her attention would be diverted to her injured husband. Her version that except the assault on her husband, she did not see anything else, also seems quite reasonable, for, after seeing the injury being inflicted on the person of her husband, it was natural that her attention would be diverted to her injured husband. So the fact that she is unable to give any further details of the incident, cannot be a ground to discredit her. 16. The contention that the trial Court erred in placing reliance on the dying declaration, Ext-8, cannot be accepted. We may state that this is not a case where the conviction is solely on the basis of the dying declaration. From the judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that dying declaration was taken as one of the factors in determining the guilt of appellant Ugrasen. The dying declaration Ext-8 was recorded by P.W. 17, the Assistant Surgeon who was posted at the Headquarters hospital, Puri at the relevant time. This witness states that on 23.8.88 at about 4 p.m., he received a request from the A.D.M.O. to record the dying declaration of injured Rama Naik and accordingly, he recorded the dying declaration at 4.30 P.M.. He further states that to his question "Tumaku Kie Marila?" the injured replied in a feeble voice 'Ugri'. Beyond this, he did not state anything more. Later the Magistrate Sri P. Mohapatra also reached the hospital, but as he has already recorded the statement and the patient was very weak, nothing could be done. P.W. 17 has clearly stated that no one promoted the deceased to name Ugrasen as the assailant nor was any pressure exerted on him to do so. Though this witness admits that he had not shown the dying declaration to the Magistrate nor had he taken thumb impression of Rama Naik, we see no reason to disbelieve him because there can be no reason for him to be interested in the prosecution nor has any such thing been suggested to him in his cross-examination. We see no reason to doubt his statement. There is no denial to the fact that the dying declaration may be in writing or oral, but in either case it is required to be proved. This can be done by examining the person who recorded the dying declaration and if it is oral, the person who heard 4 the deceased making it, must be examined as a witness. There is no denial to the fact that the dying declaration may be in writing or oral, but in either case it is required to be proved. This can be done by examining the person who recorded the dying declaration and if it is oral, the person who heard 4 the deceased making it, must be examined as a witness. In the case at hand Dr. Paresh Kumar Patnaik (P.W. 17) to whom the statement was made, has been examined. We find that the statement made to P.W. 17 is complete in its accusation that Ugrasen gave him a Tenta blow which statement was given in reply to question put by P.W. 17. This statement is fully consistent to the statement of occurrence witnesses P.Ws 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 20 who have clearly stated that Ugrasen had given a Tenta blow on the abdomen of Rama Naik. Even if for the sake of argument Ext-8 is ignored, the statement of P.W. 17 remains that to a question addressed to Rama Naik as to who assaulted him, the patient replied 'Uguri'. Therefore, the statement of this witness, in view, is relevant and can be taken into consideration along with other material on record while considering the case against appellant Ugrasen. 17. No doubt there are some injuries on the person of the appellants which have not been explained. But the injuries are all simple in nature and could have been caused anywhere. Even otherwise it is not the law that injuries sustained by the accused are to be explained in each and every case. It is also not the case of the defence suggested in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or in the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that there was a free fight between the two groups and that in this affray, both the sides received injuries. Further, it has been held that the incident took place in the house of deceased Rama Naik where the appellants had gone armed with weapons and had assaulted Rama and Debraj. P.C. that there was a free fight between the two groups and that in this affray, both the sides received injuries. Further, it has been held that the incident took place in the house of deceased Rama Naik where the appellants had gone armed with weapons and had assaulted Rama and Debraj. Under these circumstances, failure to explain the presence of 5 lacerations on the person of appellant Ugrasen and 2 lacerations on the person of appellant Manguli cannot adversely affect the prosecution case in view of the positive evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Ugrasen had given the Tenta blow on the abdomen of deceased Rama Naik and that appellant Manguli inflicted lathi blows on his person and that P.W.2-Debraj was assaulted by appellant Manguli. 18. The contention that as the incident had taken place after sunset, the witnesses had, in fact, not been able to identify the appellants, cannot also be accepted. It has come out in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that 'Dibiries' were burning and as such they were able to identify the assailants. The incident had taken place in a rural area where people are acquainted with each other and being used to dim light, are able to identify things because their vision has become accustomed to see and identify things in a dim light. Thus, the statements of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 20 that the appellant Ugrasen had assaulted the deceased and appellant Manguli also assaulted P.W.2-Debraj, has to be accepted. 19. While drawing out attention to some specific portions of the statement of prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2. 3, 20 and 21, it was contended that as they denied to have made a contradictory statement under Section 161, Cr. PC., the statement made before the Court should be discarded. However, we find that as required by Section 145 of the Evidence Act the attention of the witnesses was not specifically drawn to the specific portions of the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. which were sought to be utilised for the purpose of contradiction. And, we do not find any note of the Presiding Officer into deposition sheets to this effect nor have those particular portions been marked for identification. P.C. which were sought to be utilised for the purpose of contradiction. And, we do not find any note of the Presiding Officer into deposition sheets to this effect nor have those particular portions been marked for identification. In our considered view, if a witness states that he did or did not make a particular statement during the course of investigation to the police, the reply of the Investigating Officer in cross-examination that the witness did not or did make such a statement, cannot prove the contradiction as this procedure does not satisfy the requirements of Section 145 of the Evidence Act which along has to be resorted to if contradictions are to be proved. In this connection we may refer to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Khetra Majhi v. The State 45(1978) CLT 239 wherein it is held thus: "We regret to note that the procedure to be followed in the case of proving the contradictions appearing in the previous statements made by the prosecution witnesses to the police and the Magistrate during investigation has not been followed by the learned Judge. If a prosecution witness denies having made a previous contradictory statement before the police, the particular portion of the statement recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code should be previously marked for identification, and when the Investigating Officer who has actually recorded the statement in question, comes to the witness box, he should be questioned as to whether that particular statement had been made to him during investigation by the particular witness, and if the Investigating Officer gives answer in the affirmative the particular statement made before him should be exhibited in the case. Similarly, when it is intended to prove the contradictions appearing in the statement of a witness made under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code his attention should be drawn to that part of the contradictory statement and if he denies having made such a statement, the particular portion of the statement should be marked as an exhibit." We regret to note that this decision is being given and go-by both, by the Presiding Officers as well as the defence. The procedure I may be time consuming, but it has to be followed not. only because it has been so laid down by the Courts but also because Section 145 of the Evidence Act contemplates it. The procedure I may be time consuming, but it has to be followed not. only because it has been so laid down by the Courts but also because Section 145 of the Evidence Act contemplates it. We hope that, the Presiding Officers and defence will take note of both the decisions as also the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act which are being over looked. In view of the fact that the alleged contradictions have not been proved in accordance with law, the contention that the statement of the said witness should be discarded, cannot be accepted. 20. The question that now arises for consideration is What is the nature of offence committed by Ugri and Ugrasen? It is alleged on behalf of the appellants that as the death of Rama Naik was due to peritonitis, offence under Section 302, I.P.C. is not made out. It has been categorically stated by the prosecution witnesses Nos. 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, 11 and 20 that appellant Ugrasen inflicted a Tenta blow on the abdomen (left side) of Rama Naik which injury, according to the doctor (P.W. 16) was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It has also come in the evidence of P.W. 18 that infection was caused at the time when Rama Naik received the injury, because the instrument (weapon) was not sterilized. In his cross-examination he has stated that though perforation is responsible for peritonitis, never causes perforation. This is a case where Rama Naik received the injury and was hospitalised and as a result of that injury, peritonitis supervened. Thus, peritonitis can be connected to the injury and accordingly, it is held that the cause of death is the injury inflicted by appellant Ugrasen on the person of Rama Naik. 21. As according to the doctor the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, the case will be covered by Clause-Thirdly, of Section 300, I. P. C. which lays down that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused, is done with the intention of causing death, or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the instant case, appellant Ugrasen inflicted a Tenta blow on the abdomen of Rama Naik. Thus, it is obvious that he had the intention of causing bodily injury on a particular part of the body, namely, abdomen and he, in fact, caused that injury which he intended and which according to the medical opinion, is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, as the appellant intended to cause and did, in fact, cause abdominal wound with a 'Tenta' which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence would be murder even though death was due to peritonitis which supervened due to the injury. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the order of conviction of appellant Ugrasen under Section 302, I. P. C. recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial Court is affirmed. We also do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction of appellant Manguli under Section 323, I. P. C. and accordingly the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial Court is affirmed. The bail bond of appellant Manguli stands cancelled. He be taken to custody to undergo remaining part of the sentence. 22. Both the appeals stand dismissed. P.K. Mohanty, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed