MOHAMMAD ALI MOHMAD SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties in context with the evidence on record as well as the judgment and order which has been assailed by way of this appeal. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 453 of the IPC and sentenced for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R. I. for 6 months.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 27-6-1996 between 1. 00 a. m. and 2. 00 p. m. the appellant and his two associates were present near a hotel known as Sonal Tea House and were just to board in a taxi. Police Constable Shivaji Award P. W. 1 got the information from his informant that those persons were armed with weapons and they were going to commit the dacoity. P. W. 1 Award accosted them and made enquiries about their names and addresses. On this, the appellant and his associates assaulted him and more particularly the appellant who was holding a revolver threatened him that he would fire at him and would kill him. There ensued a scuffle and appellant thereafter ran away who was chased by P. W. 1 Awad and members of public. The appellant as per prosecution case went to a building known as "savita Sadan" and went to its first floor where P. W. Rekha Bhurke was residing. He threatened Rekha Bhurke also by showing her the revolver. The said building was surrounded by police and members of public and therefore, the appellant fired the said revolver through glass pane of the door. Thereafter he was apprehended by the police and the members of the public and was taken to the police station. After P. W. 1 Award filed the FIR, investigation proceeded and resulted in the trial against the appellant in which he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

(3.) WHILE challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, Shri Sangani vehemently argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is very much discrepant and far away from the truth. He submitted that it is unnatural and shows improperness also. He submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed the gross error by accepting it and convicting and sentencing the appellant. According to him, as the said order of conviction and sentence being incorrect, improper and illegal needs to be set aside and appellant needs to be acquitted. In the alternative Shri Sangani submitted that the appellant happens to be a poor person and he has undergone already sufficient sentence and, therefore, the sentence be reduced.