This single-judge appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of A1 for IPC offences. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence already confirmed by the Sessions Court, noting that remaining co-accused were acquitted in a separate appeal.
Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence against A1 upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
CRL.A (Sr) No.13817 of 2005
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-12-2004 passed in C.C.No.900 of 2001 by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 506 & 323 IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 352 IPC, and Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and also sentenced A1 alone to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether the quantum of sentence imposed by the Court below is just and reasonable?
From a perusal of the prosecution case and also the evidence on record, it is quite clear that the dispute between the parties is with regard to enjoyment of the property and construction of a pit for water tap. Evidently civil suit is stated to be pending between the parties and
no possession is said to have been given.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that A2 to A4 are stated to have been acquitted vide judgment dated 16th June, 2005 passed in Crl.A.No.10 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Warangal. Therefore, this appeal does not survive for consideration in respect of A2 to A4. So far as A1 is concerned, the conviction and sentence are said to have been confirmed and it is a subject matter of revision in Crl.R.P.No.1575 of 2005.
In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed against A1.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
__________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
rkk Dated: 21-2-2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quantum of sentence imposed by the Court below against A1 is just and reasonable.
A1
The State
N.R.L. Nageswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
