( 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.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has taken me to the judgment of the trial Court as also to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He has submitted that the trial Court after having given a finding that the Accused did not have the intention to knock down P. W. 5, Subash goltekar, had committed an error in holding that the Accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian penal Code. He submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and had erred in coming to the conclusion that the Accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of the indian Penal Code. He further submitted that there were several lapses in the prosecution case as the spot panchanama was not prepared by the Police and further that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had attempted to commit a murder of p. W. 5, Subash Goltekar.

( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was under the influence of alcohol and was driving a Tata sumo Vehicle and when he was asked by the patrolling Officer to stop his vehicle he had tried to knock down the said Police Officer. He submitted that if the said Police Officer had not jumped aside he surely would have died. He, therefore, submitted that though there may not be any motive for having committed the said offence, the intention of the Accused was very apparent. He submitted, therefore, that the trial Court had correctly assessed the evidence on record and had convicted the accused for an offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the finding given by the trial court was based on clear and cogent evidence given by the prosecution w