MAHADEV T PATIL Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor Shri Shobe.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri M. Sonak, who was appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme, to argue this revision on behalf of the petitioner took me through the evidence of witnesses on record, pointed out various discrepancies and submitted that the prosecution case is inherently improbable and unbelievable; that the recovery cannot be believed or at least suffers from grave doubt and that the petitioner should be acquitted.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor Shri Shobe admitted that there are some discrepancies in distances and timings, but he strenuously pleaded that the orders of the two courts below should not be interfered with since the stolen goods have been recovered from the petitioner and there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the said recovery.