1
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI
Present:- Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Monday, the Seventh (7th) day of December, 2015.
C.C. No. 269 of 2012
Old C.C.No. 20 of 2012 on the file of
III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati
Between:
The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Cr.No.125 of 2011
... Complainant
And:
A.1:Kakani Venkata Seshaiah, aged 44 years, S/o. K.Venkataiah, N/o. Boreddigaripalli, Poolikunta Post, Galiveedu Mandal, Kadapa District. Now at D.No.8-66/4A, Sree Nagar Colony, Tirupati. A.2:Kakani Lakshmaiah, aged 36 years, S/o. K.Venkatramana, D.No.8-66/4A, III Street, Sree Nagar Colony, Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. A.3:Pattem Kannaiah, aged 68 years,The case against S/o. P.Venkatrayulu, A.3 was abated D.No.20-5-354, as per docket Sanjay Gandhi Colony, order dated Korlagunta, Tirupati. 22.04.2013 A.4: Chinnakotla Indra Lakshmi, aged 40 years, W/o. C.Venugopal, D.No.20-5-354/C, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Korlagunta, Tirupati.
A.5:Sagabala Gudireddigari Chenga Reddy @ S.G.Chenga Reddy, aged 65 years, S/o. Pulla Reddy, D.No.4-3-488, Giripuram, Tirupati. A.6: Dudhi Ramesh, aged 49 years, S/o. Chenchuramaiah @ Chenchaiah, D.No.18-2-142/A, Ashok Nagar,
Tirupati.... Accused
2
This case is coming before me on 03.12.2015 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P., for the State and of Sri Matta Purushotham
Reddy, Advocate for the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6, and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T :: ::
The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati filed charge sheet for the offences under Sec.143, 448, 506 r/w 149 IPC against the accused A.1 to A.6 in Cr.No.125/2011 with the following facts.
2. The case of prosecution is that L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy, purchased the land in S.No.11/2B2A with an extent of Ac.0.25 cents of
Akkarampalli Group Accounts, near Upadyaya Nagar, Tirupati from the original and lawful vendor M.Nagamma under registered sale deed in favour of his wife B.Jyotheeswari vide Doc.No.2525/82 dated 12.05.1982 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tirupati. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the above 0.25 cents by constructing zinc sheet roofed shed and compound wall with cement bricks. Subsequently some of them created forged and fabricated documents pertaining to the said house site and basing on the forged documents, the accused A.1 to A.6 and some others trying to occupy the said site. As such dispute arose over the said house site in between
L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy on one side and the accused A.1 to A.6 and some others on other side. As such L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy kept L.W.2 B.Narasimhulu as watchman at his site to protect the site.
Accordingly L.W.2 B.Narasimhulu to L.W.4 T.Ammulu being the watchmen of the said site residing at the site itself. To protect his house site, on 23.05.2011 L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy started construction of 3 another four sheds with mason maistries L.W.5 G.Kumar, L.W.6
N.Saravana and others at his site with an intention to keep tenants at the sheds and kept L.W.8 B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy at the site to look after the construction work on his behalf. As such the accused A.1 to
A.6 bore-grudge against L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy and waiting for an opportunity to take possession of the said house site. While so, on 27.05.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., the accused A.1 to A.6 formed into members of an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into the house site of L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy, threatened mason maistries L.W.5
G.Kumar and L.W.6 N.Saravana and other labours with dire consequences to stop the construction work and also criminally trespassed into the shed, threatened the watchmen L.W.2
B.Narasimhulu to L.W.4 T.Ammulu with dire consequences saying that the house site is belongs to them and asked to go away from the site, otherwise they will kill all of them. When L.W.8 B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy resisted the accused, all the accused also threatened L.W.8
B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy with dire consequences and went away challenging that if they did not handover the site to the accused, they will face dire consequences. In this connection, on the report of L.W.1
B.Jagadeeswara Reddy, a case in Crime No.125/2011 under Sec.448, 506 r/w 34 IPC was registered and investigated into. Thus the accused
A.1 to A.6 have committed the offences punishable under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC. Hence, the charge.
3. Cognizance was taken by III Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Tirupati, the accused A.1 to A.6 are liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 of IPC and it was transfered to this court as per the proceedings of Hon’ble District Judge,
Chittoor in Dis.No.1853/2012/OP.CELL, dated 27.02.2012.
4
4. After receiving the summons, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 were present before the court and they were furnished copies under section 207 Cr.P.C. and examined under Sec. U/sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.
Ex.P.1 is the Report given by P.W.1, Ex.P.2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 11.05.1982, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of rectification sale deed dated 28.03.2003, Ex.P.4 is certified copy of General power of
Attorney dated 28.05.2011, Ex.P.5 is certified copy of order in
I.A.No.262/2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Ex.P.6 is certified copy of decree and Judgment in O.S.No.139/2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and Ex.P.7 is FIR in Crime
No.125/2011 dated 28.05.2011, Alipiri Police station, Tirupati.
6. After completing the evidence on prosecution side, the accused
A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the incriminating evidence appeared on prosecution side and reported no defence evidence.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The learned APP filed written arguments and argued that the prosecution examined all the material witnesses and marked the relevant documents and established the guilt of the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 are liable to be punished for the offence punishable under
Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC.
5
The learned APP filed authorities reported in 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 64 (SC) Dilawar Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and (2011) 2
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 493 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh and another.
9. The counsel for the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 argued that the prosecution registered the case under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149
IPC against the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6. On behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and marked the documents
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The defence counsel argued that there is series of cases pending in all courts more particularly in Civil courts between the complainant and the accused. Further argued that P.W.1's wife purchased a land in Sy.No.11/2B/2A in an extent of 25 cents located in
Akkarampalle village accounts. After 13 years they identified the difference in the survey numbers and executed a rectification sale deed since then they are unable to trace out their land and the Tahsildar visited the said land along with the Revenue and police officers. Further argued that P.W.1 is not the owner of the property and the wife of P.W.1 by name Jyothiswari purchased the house site in Sy.No.11/2B/2A but she did not examined by the prosecution and P.W.1 and P.W.6 are not the direct witnesses to the incident. Further P.W.1 admitted that accused is also having registered sale deed and pending of civil suits and also admitted that he is not present at the time of incident and it is purely the civil litigation between the complainant and the accused, and accused having possession over the scene of offence. Further P.W.1 is unable to identify his land and P.W.1 is making efforts to construct a house in hurry manner and foisted false case against the accused A.1,
A.2 and A.4 to A.6. Further argued that there is delay in giving report by
P.W.1 the incident was happened on 27.05.2011 and he gave report on 28.05.2011. Hence, there is one day delay in giving report and it was 6 not properly explained either by the complainant or the investigation officer. Hence the prosecution failed to established the guilt of the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 for the offences punishable under
Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
The counsel for the accused filed list of authorities reported in 2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 140 (SC) Myladimmal Surendran and others Vs. State of Kerala is not relevant to the present case on hand because it is pertaining to the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w 39 IPC. In this case P.W.1 admitted that he is not present at the time of offence at that time he was present in Chittoor and P.W.2 informed about the incident to him through phone, later he went to the police station and gave report.
10. Now the points that arises for consideration are:
Whether the prosecution has proved the offences
punishable under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC against the
accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT Nos.(i to iii) :
11. PW.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy deposed that he is resident of
Tirupati and retired Railway area officer. His wife owns a land in
Sy.No.11/2B/2A in an extent of 25 cents located in Akkarampalle village accounts. He got constructed compound wall around the site and it is in their possession from 1982 onwards. In the month of February, 2010 they got leveled the land for constructing a house. On 18.02.2010 in his absence some unknown persons destroyed the compound wall partially.
He gave report in Alipiri P.S. and filed a civil suit for injunction against
Jayaramaiah as he was claiming right over his site. He was granted permanent injunction and also police aid, he have obtained electricity connection also. He is paying tax to panchayat regularly, he approached L.W.2 as watchman at their site. He came to know that 7 some land grabbers are trying to grab his site by creating forged sale deeds. Then he lodged private complaint against one Purushotham and 6 others and also another complaint against Vanisree @ Anakamma and 6 others. Both were referred at P.S. Police filed charge sheet. Those cases are numbered as C.C.No.521/2012 and 156/2012 and those are pending before this court. On 23.05.2011 he started construction of four sheds in his site by engaging L.W.5 Kumar and L.W.6 Saravana who are mason workers. As he was suffering from ill-health, L.W.8 was supervising the work. On 27.05.2011 at around 8.00 a.m., while he was present in Chittoor L.W.2 called him and informed him that A.1 to A.3 and their followers came to their site and obstructed the work and they demolished the compound wall. He asked L.W.8 to go to the site immediately. He rushed to the site. He also came to the site in the afternoon. He noticed that compound wall and the walls raised by them were demolished partially. He went to their house, as he was not felling well and he would not got to police station on that date. On the next day he went to police station and presented the report. Ex.P.1 is complaint.
12. PW.2 B.Narasimhulu deposed that he is residing at Sreenagar
Colony in a shed, Tirupati and working as watchman at the house site of
P.W.1. On 23.05.2011 at about 8.30 a.m., himself, his wife L.W.3
Seshamma, L.W.4 Ammulu, L.W.5 Kumar and L.W.6 Saravana and other workers working at the house site of P.W.1. At that time A.1, A.2, A.4 to
A.6 were came into the site and objected for construction and removed the walls with hands and made galata and also threatened them with dire consequences since the site was belongs to them. Immediately he informed the same to P.W.1 over phone. P.W.1 replied that he was in out of station and informed that he will sent Vishnuvardhan Reddy.
8
After some time Vishnuvardahan Reddy came to the site of P.W.1.
Vishnuvardhan Reddy came to the site and resisted the accused and all the accused used filthy language against Vishnuvardhan Reddy. On the same day at about 1.30 p.m., thereafter Tahsildar and police came to the site of P.W.1 and instructed the above persons and the accused since it is a disputed land then all the accused were went away.
Thereafter P.W.1 gave report to the police.
13. P.W.3 N.Saravana deposed that he is native of Srikalahasti and he is mason by profession. He know P.W.1 and P.W.2. On 22.05.2011
P.W.1 approached them and asked to construct four sheds in his site situated at Srinagar colony, Tirupati. On 23.05.2011 himself and other labours were started construction work of four sheds at P.W.1's site. On 27.05.2011 at 8.00 a.m., himself and 5 other labours were attending construction work, in the meantime 10 persons came into the site out of them six persons warned them to not to construct the sheds and also remove the walls which were partly constructed by him. P.W.2 resisted the persons, then they threatened P.W.2. Immediately P.W.2 informed the above incident to P.W.1 over cell phone. P.W.1 sent his close relative to the spot. He also resisted the said persons. They threatened the relative of P.W.1. At about 1.00 p.m., police officers and Tahsildar came there and instructed the persons to go away from the said place, since it was a disputed site. Later P.W.1 came there and lodged a report
before police. The three persons present in the court hall and another
woman are the persons who demolished the walls on the site.
14. P.W.4 G.Kumar deposed that he is residing of Srikalahasti and working as mason. On 22.05.2011 P.W.1 asked him to construct four sheds at their site located in Srinagar Colony, Tirupati. Himself and
P.W.3 and other labours started construction work on 23.5.2011 onwards. On 27.05.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., while they are constructing 9 the sheds A.1 to A.3 to A.6 along with the 10 or 15 lab ours came into the site and threatened them and removed the walls and also threatened them to stop the construction work. P.W.2 resisted the tress passers. They also threatened P.W.2 to dire consequences later watchman i.e., P.W.2 informed the same to P.W.1 through cellphone after sometime L.W.8 B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy came there and resisted the said persons and also said persons threatened L.W.8. On the same day police and Tahasildar came to site and instructed them to stop the work then all the accused went away from the place of occurrence.
15. P.W.5 J.krishnamurthy deposed that he is residing at Settipalle
Village and lived by doing Civil contract works. He know P.W.1 to P.W.4.
On 27.05.2011 at about 9.00 a.m., while he was attending in work at
Sripuram Colony, Tirupati P.W.3 and P.W.4 was constructing wall at site of P.W.1 in the meantime A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 were came there and damaged the compound wall and also threatened the P.W.3 and P.W.4.
P.W.5 identified that A.1, A,2, A.4 and A.5 were damaged the wall.
16. P.W.6 Vishnuvardhan Reddy deposed that he is residing at
Tirupati and doing business. P.W.1 is her junior paternal uncle. He know
P.W.2 to P.W.5. P.W.1 having 0.25 cents house site in Sy.No.11/2B2A at
Srinagar Colony, Tirupati. About 20 years back P.W.1 constructed a compound wall and shed in the said site and he obtained power connection and also paid panchayat taxes in connection to the said site.
On 23.05.2011 on instructions of P.W.1 masons Kumar and Saravana started construction works in the said site. On 27.05.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.1 informed him over telephone that he received information from Narasimhulu who is working as watchman in the said site and he stated that A.1 to A.3 came to the site to stop the construction. Further
P.W.1 asked him that to go to site and observe what happened in the said site. Accordingly he rushed to the site and found that A.1 to A.6 10 were abusing P.W.2 and trespassed into the house site of P.W.1 and threatened the masons and labours with dire consequences and also abused them in filthy language. Then he objected their high handed acts. They also threatened him with dire consequences and also abused in unparliamentary language. Then he informed the same to P.W.1 over phone.
17. P.W.7 Raghunadh deposed that he retired from service as
A.S.I., of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati from 18.04.2011 to 31.08.2012. On 28.05.2011 while he was in-charge for the police station at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P.1 and he registered the same as FIR, as a case in Cr.No.125/2011 for the offence under Sec.143, 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P.7 is the FIR. He sent the original FIR along with the records to the concerned court. Then he immediately recorded the statement of P.W.1 and proceeded to the scene of offence which is situated at Srinagar Colony, Tirupati. At the scene of offence he secured the presence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 and L.W.3
B.Seshamma and L.W.4 T.Ammulu and recorded their statements.
Basing on the statements made by the witnesses he added A.4 to A.6.
Further investigation was taken up by L.W.10.
18. P.W.8 B.Katamaraju deposed that he have been working as
Inspector of Police, Red Sander Anti Smuggling Task Force, Tirupati.
Previously he worked as Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station from 03.08.2011 to 03.02.2012. He verified the investigation conducted by
P.W.7 and found to be in correct lines. On 16.12.2011 he received credible information about the presence of the accused he proceeded towards Srinagar Colony along his staff and reached to the house of A.2 situated inD.No.8-66-4A,IIIStreet, SrinagarColony,
Satyanarayanapuram at 11.00 a.m., there he found six persons standing infront of house of their house, then he arrested A.1 to A.6 and 11 explained the reasons for arrest and sent the accused for judicial remand on the same day.
19. To prove the case of prosecution, the counsel for the accused examined D.W.1 A.Bhanumathi deposed that she is residing at
Annamaiah Nagar, Tirupati and retired as attender in Forest
Department. She constructed a house in Srinagar Colony in the year 2008. She know Lakshmaiah, Chenga Reddy, Indira Lakshmi, Venkata
Seshaiah, Ramesh they are her neighbours at Srinagar Colony. She know all of them since date of purchase of house at Srinagar Colony.
She do not know Jagadeshwar Reddy, but she heard his name.
Jagadeshwar Reddy is not having any house at Srinagar Colony. On 27.05.2011 at 8.00 a.m., not galata was happened at Srinagar Colony.
On 11.05.2011 she went to Bangalore to her daughter's house. D.W.1 came to Tirupati and neighbours informed that Jagadeshwar Reddy demolishing the houses at Srinagar Colony.
20. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6 it is admitted that
P.W.1 is having house site in Sy.No.11/2B/2A in an extent of 0.25 cents located in Akkarampalle Village accounts and constructed a compound wall and shed in that land and also admitted fact that there is civil cases pending with regard to pertaining to this property. Further P.W.2 who is the watchman was residing in the said shed since 10 years and P.W.1 is paying Rs.1,000/- per month as salary. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 who is the direct witness to the incident with regard to that on 27.05.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was present in his house he received phone call from P.W.2 and informed that A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 were trespassed into the house site and demolished the shed and compound wall. Hence, it clearly shows that P.W.1 is having possession over that property and P.W.2 is 12 residing in that shed and also he was present at the time of incident and witnessed the incident is acceptable and believable. The counsel for the accused examined one Bhanumathi in chief as D.W.1 and D.W.1 did not turn up for the cross-examination. Hence, her evidence is not considered.
21. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6, I came to a conclusion that prosecution established the guilt of the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to
A.6 for the offences punishable under Sec.143, 448 IPC r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
22. In the result, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.506 r/w 149 IPC.
Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. Further, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.143 & 448 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offences.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of December, 2015.
Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani
IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
When questioned as to quantum of sentence, the accused A.1, A.2,
A.4 to A.6 submitted that they are sole bread winners of their families and request to pleaded mercy stating that if they were committed to jail their families suffered with financial problems. In view of the nature of the offence, provisions of P.O. Act have no application. Having considered the plea of the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6, I am inclining to take a lenient view against them by imposing fine and I feel the same would meet the ends of Justice.
13
23. The accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each for the offence punishable under Sec.143 IPC in default of payment of fine the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for the offence punishable under Sec.448 IPC in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are informed their right to prefer an appeal and right to get free legal aid from
M.L.S.A.
Total fine amount comes to Rs.7,500/-.
Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of December, 2015.
Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani
IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the
Prosecution:
PW1:B.Jagadeeswara Reddy PW2:B.Narasimhulu PW3:N.Saravana PW4:G.Kumar PW5:J.Krishnamurthy PW6:B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy PW7:M.Raghunath PW8:B.Katama Raju
Witnesses examined on behalf of the
Defence:
DW1:A.Bhanumathi 14
Exhibits marked on behalf of the
Prosecution:Defence: Ex.P1Report given by P.W.1 Nil
Ex.P2Certified copy of sale deed dated 11.05.1982. Ex.P3Certified copy of rectification deed dated 28.03.2003 Ex.P4Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 28.05.2011. Ex.P5Certified copy of order in I.A.No.262/2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Ex.P6Certified copy of decree and judgment in
O.S.No.139/2010 on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Ex.P.7FIR in Crime No.125/2011 dated 28.05.2011, Alipiri Police station, Tirupati.
Id/- M.S.R.
IV AJCJ
Tirupati.
//True Copy//
IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
TIRUPATI
15
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
Present:- Smt.M.Sandhya Rani, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Monday, the Seventh (7th) day of December, 2015.
C.C. No. 269 of 2012
Old C.C.No. 20 of 2012 on the file of
III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati
Date of offence :27.05.2011 Date of report :28.05.2011 Date of taken on file :11/01/12 Date of apprehension (appearance) :17.06.2013 Date of commencement of trial :10/03/14 Date of close of trial :03/12/15 Date of Judgment :07/12/15 Complainant :The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Cr.No.125 of 2011
Name of the accusedFather's nameAge Calling ReligionResidenceMandal
Kakani Venkata K.Venkataiah45 yrsTeacherHinduRayachotiRayachoti Seshaiah K.LakshmaiahK.Venkatramana37 yrsElectricianHinduTirupatiTirupati P.KannaiahP.VenkatrayuluThe case against A.3 was abated as per docket order dated 22.04.2013 Chinnakotla Indra W/o. 41 yrsTeacherHinduTirupatiTirupati LakshmiC.Venugopal Sagabala Pulla Reddy67 yrsBusinessHinduTirupatiTirupati Gudireddigari Chenga Reddy @ S.G.Chenga Reddy Dudhi RameshChenchuramaiah 39 yrsBusinessHinduTirupatiTirupati @ Chenchaiah
Nature of offenceUnder Sec.143, 448 & 506 IPC r/w 149 IPC
FindingFound guilty
Sentence or order: In the result, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under
Sec.506 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.
Further, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are found 16 guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.143 & 448 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offences.
The accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each for the offence punishable under Sec.143 IPC in default of payment of fine the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to
A.6 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each and also sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for the offence punishable under Sec.448 IPC in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
Accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are informed their right to prefer an appeal and right to get free legal aid from
M.L.S.A.
Accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 paid total fine amount of Rs.7,500/-.
Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani,
IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
//True Copy//
IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
TIRUPATI