Telangana HC Points to Gaps in Murder Probe, Frees Life Convict

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy, set aside the life sentence imposed on a man accused of murdering his grandmother-in-law in 2014. The panel held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The panel allowed the criminal appeal filed by Mora Sriramulu Sriram, who challenged the conviction order passed by the Family Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar.

The prosecution alleged that the accused killed Kampendla Lakshmamma due to a grudge arising out of a family dispute following a customary divorce between him and his wife. The panel found major inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The panel observed that the incident occurred during winter at night, when there was no light in the house, making identification of the assailant highly doubtful. The panel noted that important witnesses present at the scene, including one Chandramma and the deceased’s husband, were not examined. The panel pointed out contradictions regarding the accused’s clothing, absence of proof of the alleged motive, and the unexplained delay in the FIR reaching the magistrate despite the police station being in close proximity.

Speaking for the panel, Justice Lakshman observed that the testimony of close relatives, without reliable corroboration, did not inspire confidence and could not form the basis for conviction. Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the panel acquitted the appellant.

HC dismisses plea on land takeover

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea challenging the alleged takeover of land at Gorrekunta, Warangal district, for the construction of a 33/11 kV electricity sub-station. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Bandela Mallikarjun and 39 others.

The petitioners contended that they were granted 100-square yard house-site pattas in 1994 and that officials recently entered the land, cleared it with machinery and laid a foundation stone without issuing notice. They alleged that construction of the sub-station required land acquisition and compensation and that absence of notice was in violation of their constitutional rights. Opposing the writ plea, the state and electricity authorities contended that the land was classified as government poramboke land since 1990-91 and remained vacant without any structures.

It was submitted that the divisional engineer, TSNPDCL, sought one acre for the sub-station and the district collector allotted the land and handed over advance possession. The authorities asserted that no acquisition was required as the land was government property and the petitioners’ claim of pattas remained unsupported by any record. Recording the rival submissions, the judge noted that the petitioners placed no proof of pattas, possession or development, while the respondents produced consistent records showing the land belonged to the government. The court observed that even assuming pattas existed, non-construction for over three decades violated assignment conditions. Accordingly, the judge held that questions of acquisition, compensation or rehabilitation did not arise and dismissed the writ plea.

Accused in marriage cheating case gets bail

The Telangana High Court granted bail to a man accused of exploiting a colleague under a promise of marriage. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Mothi Rahul Raj seeking bail in a case registered by the Sanathnagar police. Counsel for the petitioner contended that both parties were adults in a consensual relationship and that no false promise of marriage was made. He contended that the petitioner had been in custody since October 29 and that investigation was substantially complete. Taking note of the period of custody, the stage of investigation, and the examination of key witnesses, consensual relationship between the parties, the judge observed that further detention was not warranted at this stage.