Don’t Name Family Members in Dowry Case Without Evidence, Says HC

Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court on Monday reiterated that general accusations without specific evidence should not be used to implicate family members in a dowry harassment case.

The judge made this observation while quashing criminal proceedings against the in-laws of a woman who filed a dowry harassment complaint, citing insufficient evidence to prosecute them.

The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by the in-laws, where the petitioners contended that they resided separately from the complainant and her husband and had no direct involvement in any alleged harassment.

The case was registered under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant, who married the primary accused on June 19, 2021, alleged that she was subjected to both mental and physical harassment by her husband and his family, who demanded additional dowry.

Based on her complaint, the police filed charges against the husband’s parents, brother, sister, and brother-in-law. The judge observed that the complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay, raising questions about its legitimacy.

Furthermore, it found that the allegations against the in-laws were vague and lacked any specific overt acts that could sustain a criminal prosecution against them. The judge emphasised that in cases involving matrimonial disputes, a preliminary inquiry is necessary, particularly when complaints are delayed. The judge pointed out that the investigating officer, in this instance, failed to conduct such an inquiry before registering the FIR, which was contrary to established legal guidelines.

HC takes up PIL on encroachment of NALA lands

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court took on file a Public Interest Litigation challenging alleged encroachment of non-agricultural land (NALA) lands at Gandi Chowk, Atmakur, Wanaparthy district.

The bench, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a PIL filed by Basireddy Santhosh Reddy. The petitioner argued that state functionaries have failed to take any action against the alleged encroachers despite making several representations to them.

The petitioner also pointed out that unofficial respondents are in illegal occupation of lands and have made unauthorised constructions on the same. Earlier, the bench said that the petitioner had not disclosed his public-spirited antecedents and accordingly granted time to amend his affidavit. On Monday, the bench ordered notices to respondents and directed the state to file its response within four weeks.

Court acquits 2 in Bahadurpura murder case

The Telangana High Court set aside the conviction of two individuals in the 2013 Bahadurpura murder case, highlighting contradictions in witness testimonies and serious procedural lapses in the investigation.

The bench, comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice E.V. Venugopal, allowed the criminal appeal filed by Razzak Khan and Raheem Khan, who were arrayed as accused 1 and 3, respectively, challenging the life sentences imposed by the trial court under Section 302 IPC.

The case pertains to the brutal stabbing of a man near Rama Theatre, Bahadurpura, on June 6, 2013, allegedly due to a longstanding property dispute. The trial court convicted the appellants while acquitting two other co-accused due to lack of evidence. However, the High Court found multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly in the testimony of the sole eyewitness on whom the case heavily relied.

The sole eyewitness was identified as a “chance witness” with no prior acquaintance with the accused, and testified in court that he saw Razzak committing the crime. However, the court noted a crucial procedural lapse and said no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and sole eyewitness identified Razzak for the first time in court, more than four years after the incident.

The bench deemed this delay highly improbable and unreliable. The case of the prosecution suffered further damage due to glaring contradictions in the timeline of arrests. While other witnesses claimed that the accused were already in police custody on June 6 or 7, 2013, the Investigating Officer asserted that the arrests took place on June 9, 2013. The court found this discrepancy substantial enough to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s version of events.

Another critical factor that weighed in favour of the appellants was the unexplained delay in the First Information Report (FIR) reaching the magistrate’s court. Despite being registered at 4.30 pm on the day of the incident, the FIR was delivered to the Magistrate only at 10.50 pm, even though the court was nearby.

The bench viewed this delay with suspicion, questioning the integrity of the prosecution’s claims. Citing the lack of corroborative evidence, inconsistencies in the timeline, and serious procedural irregularities, the High Court ruled that the accused deserved the benefit of the doubt. It set aside the conviction and ordered the immediate release of appellants, provided they were not required in any other case.