TANOI ADWALPALKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned trial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge holding the applicant guilty of offences punishable under Section 332 of the Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: On 29/12/2008 at about 6.45 p.m., PW1 Head Constable Ravindra Khorate, buckle no.3501 claims to have been posted at duty at the spot. The applicant took exception to parking of a car possibly on the road. Head Constable Ravindra Khorate claims to have told the applicant that the car belonged to some Karnataka Minister and that it would move away as soon as the occupants alighted from the car. However, the applicant was not satisfied with the reply and hit the Head Constable with a key chain in his hand resulting in an abrasion on the victim's cheek. Other police men were informed and the applicant was taken to police station along with the Head Constable. The Head Constable was referred for medical examination and, thereafter, on his report an offence was registered. In course of investigation on 30/12/2008, panchanama of spot was performed. Statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation a charge was sent to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent and with the help of both, I have gone through the evidence on record. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that if the applicant has been taken along with the injured Head Constable Ravindra Khorate to the police station, it is not clear as to why the report at Exhibit 49 does not mention the name of the applicant and only states that an unknown person had hit the Head Constable. The learned Counsel pointed out from the cross-examination of PW1/Head Constable Ravindra Khorate that he had seen the accused on the date of incident and even after the incident, as the brother of the accused was having a shop at Santa Monica Jetty. Thus, PW1/Ravindra Khorate should have been able to name the applicant in the report.