Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE,VILLUPURAM

CA /2012

[1] BALU [28] S/O KALIYAPERUMAL
[2] KALIYAPERUMAL [68] S/O PETHAYEE KONAR
[3] SUMATHI [43] W/O KAIYAPERUMAL
[4] LAKSHMI [74] W/O RAMACHANDHIRAN --------- APPELLANT /ACCUSED
V/S
STATE REPRESENTED BY
SHO .ARACANDANALLUR
CR.NO. 39/2009 -------- RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE
-------------------------------
T.JAYAPRAKASH.B.A.,B.L.,
ADVOCATE,
VILLUPURAM-605 602

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED U/S 374[3]CR.P.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appellant /accused in the above case humbly submitted that they are preferring this
appeal against the order of the Learned additional assistant sessions judge, no 2,villupuram.In this case
A1 to A4 are convicted u/s 498[A],363[3] and 304[B] IPC and sentenced the accused 1to 3 to under go
rigorous imprisonment for 4 years each and also to pay a fine of Rupees 1000/-each in default to under
go simple imprisonment for three months for offence u/s 306[3]IPC and the accused number 1to 3 to
under go rigorous imprisonment for four years and also to pay a fine of Rupees 1,000/-each ,in default,
to under go simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s 304[B]IPC and for the accused
number four[4] to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in
default ,to under go simple imprisonment for three months for each offences u/s 306[3] and 304[B]IPC
and the accused 1 to 3 under go rigorous imprisonment for four years each offence for offence u/s
498[A] and the 4 th accused to under go rigorous imprisonment for year.
The judgment was ordered on 8
th
August 2012 in Sc 267/2009 in the file of the above Honble
court.
[1] Since the order passed by the Learned Additional Assistant Sessions judgeno -2 , is against
the law ,weight of evidence, natural principles and usual proceedings of the court. Since the Learned
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge no -2 failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellant in toto and
erred in convicting the appellant the appellant in this case preferred this appeal against the order of
the Learned Judge.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi