JUDGMENT
J.G. Chitre, J.
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 ease 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.
4. Mr. Saste, while repelling the submissions advanced by Shri Sangani, vehemently justified the order of conviction and sentence by pointing out the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Shri Saste submitted that every conclusion drawn by the trial Court is consistent with the evidence on record and as it is so there is absolutely no incorrectness, impropriety and illegality in the order of conviction and sentence. He submitted that the appellant should have been sentenced with more term of imprisonment keeping in view the serious activities committed by him and, therefore, there is 110 scope of reducing the sentence.
5. After examining the evidence of P.W. 1 Awad and Rekha Bhurke as well as evidence of Surve, there is absolutely no doubt that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The smaller discrepancies at fringes are itself giving a guarantee of its truthfulness and excludes the possibility of tutoring. It is pertinent to note that those witnesses were giving evidence in Court after lapse of many days and, therefore, keeping in view the sluggish habits of common mind in narrating the incident, such discrepancies at fringes and variance on minor details are bound to be there. The evidence is to be assessed as a whole and at that time the normal human behaviour has to be kept in mind. The impact created by the evidence has to be understood and, thereafter adjudication has to be recorded whether the accused happens to be guilty or not. In this case, the guilt has been proved to the point of “must be guilty”.
6. The learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and has rightly recorded the conclusions holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC. Therefore, this Court finds no fault with it.
7. While dealing with the prayer made by Shri Sangani for reduction of the sentence, this Court expresses its view that the sentence is already lenient. The appellant was possessing a revolver and he entered into the room of Rekha Bhurke and pointed out at her the revolver and threatened her after threatening Police Constable Awad. The way in which he and his associates attacked the police constable Awad showed their indifference towards the law and there unruly behaviour tending to hooliganism. Thereafter the appellant had fired a bullet through the door glass pane. That show his defiance to the order of law. He was required to be apprehended by police machinery and members of public. His act of pointing the revolver to Rekha Bhurke, pointing the revolver to police constable Awad has to be taken into consideration while judging the sufficiency of the sentence. Thus, the prayer for modifying the sentence stands dismissed.
8. As the order of conviction and sentence is correct, proper and legal, the appeal stands dismissed. No interference in the order of disposal of the property.
9. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court.