Life Sentence and Conviction of Farmer Set Aside

 Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside the conviction and life sentence of a farmer in a case involving dowry harassment and alleged murder of his wife. The panel, comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, held that the trial was vitiated due to the appellant’s lack of effective legal representation, violating his fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that mere appointment of a legal aid lawyer does not suffice; the defence must be meaningful and effective to satisfy the requirements of a fair trial. Consequently, the panel remanded the case for a fresh trial, directing the lower court to conclude proceedings within four months. The criminal appeal filed by Maloth Ravi arose from the conviction order issued by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. The trial court found the appellant guilty under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing fines. The prosecution’s case was built on the complaint filed by the father of the deceased, Bhukya Jamla, who alleged that the accused subjected his daughter to severe physical assault and harassment over dowry demands, ultimately leading to her death. According to the complaint, on September 12, 2016, the appellant brutally assaulted his wife before abandoning her in a critical condition near her brother’s residence in Kazipet. She was taken to a hospital in Hanamkonda, where she succumbed to her injuries the following day. Counsel for the appellant argued that many prosecution witnesses were examined in the absence of the accused’s lawyer, rendering the cross-examination ineffective. It was highlighted that the legal aid lawyer assigned to the case was frequently absent, forcing the appellant to attempt a weak and ineffective defence on his own. The prosecution, represented by the additional public prosecutor, contended that the appellant was provided with legal representation. Upon reviewing the trial court records, the panel found substantial procedural lapses, noting that the accused was deprived of his right to effective cross-examination. The panel observed that the absence of a competent defence attorney throughout the trial had resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. It held that mere appointment of a legal aid lawyer does not suffice; the defence must be meaningful and effective to satisfy the requirements of a fair trial. The panel also held that the failure to provide legal assistance amounted to a violation of fundamental rights, warranting the annulment of the conviction. While deliberating on the appropriate remedy, the panel referred to the Supreme Court’s guidance on cases where trials are vitiated due to procedural irregularities. It noted that while the accused’s conviction could not stand, outright acquittal was not warranted given the gravity of the allegations. The panel opted for a re-trial, directing the trial court to ensure that the accused receives adequate legal representation throughout the proceedings. The panel further instructed the prosecution to reassess the necessity of witnesses to expedite the re-trial process. In a parting directive, the panel emphasised that the accused must be given an opportunity to engage counsel of his choice, failing which the trial court should appoint a competent legal aid lawyer. The public prosecutor was also tasked with assisting the court in ensuring a fair and expeditious retrial.

Plea questions IPC Section 202

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday deferred hearing of a plea assailing the validity of Section 202 of the IPC, including corresponding Section 239 of BNS 2023 qua “Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform”. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a writ plea filed by one Sunil Singh Jadhav. It is the case of the petitioner that he was implicated in a crime by Sanathnagar police for allegedly for not reporting the commission of crime i.e. a murder, on November 15, 2017 at Sanathnagar. The petitioner contended that Section 202 of the IPC, 1860 (corresponding Section 239 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023) punishes the person who either “knowingly” or “having reason to believe” that “an offence has been committed”, “intentionally omits” to “give information” respecting that offence which he is “legally bound” to give is unconstitutional as the terms “knowingly” or “having reason to believe” are used in “vague” terms. Counsel for the petitioner, Baglekar Akash Kumar argued that in the instant case, the petitioner was made an accused just because on the confession statement of accused that he and another accused had informed the petitioner about committing the murder, and that the petitioner herein had failed to report it, when, in fact, the petitioner did not see commitment of the murder and based on a “hearsay evidence”, the petitioner is called upon to report the crime. Thus, any person can be roped in by use of such “loose” and “vague” words for not reporting of crime. Per contra, the state argued that such grounds could be raised in the quash petition. which is pending and could not be reargued in a writ petition by challenging the validity of said sections. The panel accordingly directed counsel to prosecute the quash petition and posted the matter to March 4.