BARKATSINGHRAMSINGH RAINA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Sait and Shri Gadkari at length. Shri Sait,counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the evidence of complainant Shamrao Jedhe is discrepant on many points and lacks corroboration of independent witnesses and therefore. Court should not have believed it and should have acquitted the appellant. He pointed out that there is a difference between the names of the appellant a Barkatsingh and Jorawarshing. He submitted that the information was in respect of Barkatsingh and therefore, as the appellant happens to be Shikh persons, he might have been implicated in this case on account of suspicion. He prayed that the appellant be acquitted, though he has undergone the sentence and the order of sentence be also set aside.

(2.) SHRI Gadkari, A. P. P. for the prosecution, submitted that the appellant may be Jorawarsingh or may be Barkatsingh, but the most important fact which the Court should consider is that he was caught on the spot and he was the same person who had put the Pistol on the chest of P. W. P. I. Jedhe. Shri Gadkari submitted that when the appellant whipped out the pistol from the pocket and put it on the chest of complainant Shri Jedhe and when the said pistol was fully loaded, there cannot be any other intention but to attempt for killing P. I. Jedhe. He submitted that, in view of that, order of conviction and sentence is correct, proper and legal, because, by the evidence of Shri Jedhe himself, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) I find force in the submissions advanced by Shri Gadkari for the prosecution, because he may be Barkatsingh or he may be Jorawarsing but fact remains that he was the person who took out a pistol from his pocket, which was fully loaded and put on the chest of P. I. Jedhe. When he put a loaded Pistol on the chest of P. I. Jedhe who was there for arresting him what could be his intention? His intention was to attempt for committing the murder of P. I. Jedhe and to obstruct him from discharging his duty. Therefore, the difference in the names does not assume importance at all.