HYDERABAD: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Thursday sentenced three persons to undergo life imprisonment for the murder of five persons in Amberpet. The panel of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Sreedevi allowed a state appeal against the acquittal.
The 1st additional metropolitan sessions judge, Hyderabad, had in February 2012 acquitted all the accused. It was a case that Syed Jehangir and eight others had committed the murder of the wife of accused no.1 Syed Jehangir, her parents and two brothers. Jehangir and his brother Syed Kareem are both auto-rickshaw mechanics while the other accused is a private bus driver. Earlier the panel had required the three persons to be present in court, to hear them on the quantum of punishment. In tears, they sought mercy stating that they (accused brothers) had small children dependent on them. The panel, speaking through Justice Lakshman, granted four weeks to the accused to surrender before the trial court. The marriage between the accused and his wife was solemnised in 2008 but soon disputes arose and multiple cases, including dowry prohibition and maintenance, were filed. According to the prosecution, the family members of accused no.1, including women with deadly weapons, went to the house of the deceased at 6.15 am, attacked them and committed the ghastly act. In an 82-page verdict, the panel, speaking through Justice Lakshman, found that there was clear evidence that the accused came together to the house of the deceased and had committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. The argument of the counsel for the accused that once sentimental and emotional feelings are allowed to enter the judicial mind, the judge is bound to view the evidence with bias, and that all possible chances of an innocent man being convicted have to be ruled out, was met with in the 82-page verdict. As per Rule 33 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, the doctor has to confirm with regard to the condition of the injured before recording her declaration. He should obtain a certificate from the medical officer as to the mental condition of the declarant. It appeared that since the deceased no. 5 was not in a position to give a statement, he could not record her statement. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for respondents-accused that the dying declaration of deceased no. 5 was not recorded and could not be a ground to acquit the accused, the panel said.
Mother of teen victim gets one-hour visiting rights to meet daughter
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Thursday gave one-hour visiting rights on Saturdays to the mother of a victim, presently lodged in Prajwala Rescue Home, Hyderabad. The panel of Justice Sam Koshy and Justice Sambasivarao Naidu were hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of the 14-year-old victim. The mother had stated that the victim was being sexually abused by the father. The child welfare committee on a representation by the mother of the victim had moved the child from parental custody to the home. In the present writ petition, the petitioner complained that the confinement was illegal. Deepak Mishra, counsel for Prajwala, pointed out that custody of the minor child with Prajwala was based on an order of a statutory authority and cannot be perceived as ‘illegal detention.’ The government counsel opposed the visitation rights on the grounds that there was a likelihood of the child being brainwashed, leading to the victim turning hostile. The panel granted visiting rights to the mother on Saturdays in the presence of a functionary of Prajwala. Accordingly, the panel closed the habeas corpus case.
HC dismisses bail plea of three ganja peddlers
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court dismissed a bail petition filed by Dnyanoba Amul Gore and two others in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case. The bail petition was filed by the three, who are accused of being in possession of narcotic substances. Counsel for the accused argued that all the accused were lorry drivers and were falsely implicated in the case. It was stated that they were in judicial custody for more than six months, and the investigation was complete. The public prosecutor opposed bail as there was a prima facie case and the accused were carrying 336 kg of ganja.
A lawyer and his client get contempt notice
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court issued a contempt notice to practicing advocate Gangula Narahari and his client C. Manohar. The panel of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti acted upon a letter addressed to the court by the senior civil judge, Bodhan, for initiating contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. It was stated that the client and counsel had committed contempt of the trial court. According to the letter, the senior civil judge had required the contemnors to appear before the court. Instead of appearing, the advocate issued a show cause notice to the trial court and the senior superintendent of the court, levelling allegations of abuse of administration of justice. In a civil dispute arising from a suit of 2001, the decree-holder Akula Ellu Bai had filed an application for the appointment of an advocate commissioner for partition of property as per the decree. Though the decree was not challenged, the judgment debtor and his counsel carried out the actions leading to the panel issuing the contempt notice.
Roads for SEZ land plea before HC
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court required officials to file a counter on permissions sought for laying a 100-feet road on Ameenpur SEZ land. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Omics International pvt. ltd. seeking to restore and maintain access of the road approved by the HMDA. It was contended that the SEZ had no roads, and the HMDA was not acting upon the application filed by the petitioner. V.T. Kalyan, appearing for the centre, pointed out that the petitioner had no locus since no application emanated from the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the SEZ property had been attached as proceeds of crime and the question of the development of the land at the instance of the petitioner did not arise.
