Telangana High Court Sets Aside Life Sentences in 2014 Murder Case

The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove motive or the alleged occurrence beyond reasonable doubt, relying instead on unreliable and contradictory eyewitness testimonies. They further contended that independent witnesses residing near the scene were not examined and that the extra-judicial confession relied upon by the prosecution was weak and uncorroborated. It was also pointed out that there were serious inconsistencies between the oral testimony of a key witness and his statement under Section 164 CrPC.

Opposing the appeal, the state argued that the prosecution evidence—including eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon—clearly established the guilt of the accused. The respondents submitted that minor contradictions could not discredit the prosecution case and that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence in convicting the appellants.

After hearing both sides, the panel found material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution case and observed that the trial court had misread the evidence while brushing aside vital discrepancies. Reiterating that when two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail, the court acquitted the appellants and directed their release forthwith, unless required in any other case.

The Telangana High Court directed the competent authorities to enquire into allegations of forgery, misappropriation of funds, and attempted illegal alienation of certain Waqf properties in Hyderabad. Justice N. Tukaramji was dealing with a plea filed by advocate Sofian Bin Abdul Hannan, alleging inaction against former office-bearers of Masjid-e-Kalan, also known as Jama Masjid at AC Guards.

The petitioner alleged that the unofficial respondents committed financial irregularities in the administration of Waqf properties. It was contended that the former president and vice-president of the mosque committee had committed misfeasance and malfeasance in relation to properties including Choti Masjid (also known as Masjid-e-Qutub Shahi/Masjid-e-Bilal), graveyards at AC Guards, Shanthinagar, and Khairatabad (Siddi Risala), and Idgah AC Guards at Masab Tank.

Counsel for the petitioner, Habeeb Abubakar Alhamed, argued that the unofficial respondents allegedly created forged and fabricated documents and were attempting to alienate Waqf property in favour of a family member. It was further argued that despite representations to the Telangana Waqf Board and complaints before the jurisdictional police, including the Nampally station house officer, no effective action was initiated.

The writ petition sought a direction for a joint enquiry by the Waqf Board, the district collector, and other authorities, and also prayed for registration of an FIR against the private respondents. The Central Bureau of Investigation was arrayed as a respondent in the case.

After hearing the submissions, the court observed that the grievance must first be examined by the appropriate statutory authority under the governing legal framework. The judge directed the authorities concerned to consider the petitioner’s representations and take action in accordance with law.

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside the conviction of an accused charged with the rape of a minor, noting delay in lodging the complaint, lapses in investigation, and deficiencies in appreciation of evidence by the trial court. The panel, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, was dealing with an appeal filed by Boddula Shekhar challenging his conviction under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed sexual assault on a minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. The trial court acquitted him of the substantive offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC but convicted him for attempt under Section 511 IPC and for offences under the SC/ST Act, sentencing him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, life imprisonment, and five years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively.

The High Court found the conviction unsustainable in light of material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version regarding the occurrence and disclosure of the alleged incident. The panel noted that medical and forensic records did not corroborate the prosecution case and that the same evidence had led the trial court to reject the charge of completed rape.

The panel observed that once the prosecution consistently alleged a completed offence, conviction for attempt under Section 511 IPC could not stand without independent material establishing an attempted offence. On the charges under the SC/ST Act, the panel ruled that the essential statutory ingredients were not established, particularly the requirement that the accused was in a position to dominate the will of the victim under Section 3(1)(xii) and that the offence was committed on the ground of the victim’s caste under Section 3(2)(v).

Holding that the impugned judgment did not withstand legal scrutiny, the panel allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant.

The Telangana High Court stayed further proceedings initiated by the labour appellate authority against Hindustan Unilever Limited under the Telangana State Shops and Establishments Act. Justice Renuka Yara admitted a writ plea filed by the company.

The petitioner argued that the appellate authority passed the impugned order in disregard of the statutory framework governing the appellate remedy and without appreciating the legal consequences arising from non-compliance with earlier directions within the mandatory period of 30 days. Such non-compliance, according to the petitioner, rendered the second appeal infructuous.

The company sought issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and a consequential direction to hear and dispose of the main appeal on merits. A caveator appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent and opposed the grant of interim relief, contending that substantial dues amounting to about ₹60 lakh were pending against the petitioner.

In response, HUL contended that amounts aggregating to nearly ₹41 lakh had already been paid and placed material on record evidencing such payments for the court’s perusal. The matter is directed to be listed on February 15 for the respondents’ counter affidavit.