SANGAYYA PANCHKATTI MATT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/original accused is challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, panaji in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2002. By the said Judgment and Order dated 25th May, 2004, the Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo Simple imprisonment for 2 years and also impose a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for a further period of 2 months. The Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and to undergo Simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 30-3-2001 at about 4.10 hours the accused was driving a Tata Estate Car and at that time was under the influence of alcohol and in this condition he deliberately tried to knock down Police Inspector S. R. Goltekar of the Porvorim Police Station who was on night duty at the relevant time. The prosecution case is that the Police Inspector, however, saved himself by jumping aside. The prosecution case further is that the Accused thereafter was apprehended and his blood sample was taken and it is believed that he was under the influence of alcohol. The prosecution case, therefore, is that the Appellant tried to commit murder of Police Inspector S. R. Goltekar and also committed offence under the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A charge-sheet was filed after investigation was made by the Police. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted the Accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A. Palekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S. N. Sardessai, learned public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state.