A two-judge panel comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dealt with a batch of criminal appeals filed by Md. Isaq and four others, who challenged their conviction under the Indian Penal Code for murder and the life sentence imposed by the trial court
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court set aside the conviction of five people accused in the 2006 Vikarabad murder case, citing procedural lapses and delays in the investigation. A two-judge panel comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dealt with a batch of criminal appeals filed by Md. Isaq and four others, who challenged their conviction under the Indian Penal Code for murder and the life sentence imposed by the trial court. The trial court convicted the appellants, accused No.s 1 to 5, while acquitting 10 other accused for lack of evidence. The case pertained to the murder of Narsing Rao, who was allegedly attacked by a group of individuals armed with swords, knives, and iron rods near the Railway Guest House, Vikarabad. The panel noted that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with an eight-hour delay, despite the police station being located just half a kilometre away from the crime scene. Further, the FIR reached the magistrate’s court only at 11 am, despite the court being only 10-15 minutes away. The panel also found contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, with one witness stating that 50 people were involved in the attack, while another named only six accused. Considering the discrepancies in witness statements, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the unexplained failure of the police to act promptly, the panel extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants. Accordingly, the panel set aside the conviction order passed by the trial court, acquitted Accused Nos. 1 to 5, and directed immediate discharge of their bail bonds.
HC rules in favour of ex wife for pension
The Telangana High Court ruled that no prior government sanction was necessary for a divorced wife to claim pension. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka directed the Controller of Defence Accounts to grant family pension to a 67-year-old woman and ruled that she would remain entitled to receive family pension after her husband’s death. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by A. Mounica, who was formerly married to Francis Xavier, a senior auditor in the controller of defence accounts department. The petitioner sought a family pension based on a 2006 order from the Family Court in Secunderabad. While petitioner’s marriage was dissolved at her husband’s request, the family court explicitly ruled that she would remain entitled to receive a family pension after his death. The same order also restrained the employee from nominating any other person for the pension. Despite the Family Court’s order, after the employee’s demise, the petitioner’s claim for pension benefits was denied by the authorities. The rejection was on the ground that a divorced wife was not eligible for a family pension without prior sanction from the Government of India. Facing financial distress, including the responsibility of caring for her mentally unwell son and repaying debts from her daughter’s wedding, the petitioner challenged this denial in court. During the hearing, the respondents acknowledged that a monthly pension of Rs 10,025 was sanctioned to the deceased employee. However, they argued that since no nominee had been designated in official records and since the petitioner was divorced, she was not entitled to the pension benefits. The judge, however, noted that there was no competing claim for the pension and that the authorities disregarded a judicial pronouncement in favour of the petitioner. The judge reaffirmed that once a court legally determined entitlement to a pension, administrative authorities have no discretion to override it. Further, as the pension remained unclaimed after the employee’s death, the judge observed that denying the right of the petitioner served no justifiable purpose. Accordingly, the judge directed the respondents to grant the petitioner her rightful family pension immediately and to disburse all arrears from the date of entitlement within four months.
Customer at brothel not liable: HC
The Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of visiting a brothel, ruling that merely being present at such a location does not constitute an offense under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unless there is evidence of active involvement in trafficking or exploitation. Justice Juvvadi Sridevi dealt with a criminal petition filed by Kalvakuntla Venkata Rama Rao seeking to quash pending criminal proceedings against him. According to the prosecution, a raid conducted by Narayanaguda Police in Venkat Vihar Apartment, beside Madina Degree College, Himayathnagar, based on information about alleged prostitution activities. The police reportedly found the petitioner in the premises and booked him under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the woman found in the apartment was not a trafficked individual and that the petitioner had no role in running or managing the alleged brothel. Counsel also argued that the legal provisions under which he was booked were meant for people involved in trafficking, coercion, or running prostitution-related operations, rather than customers. Justice Sridevi held that the prosecution failed to present any evidence that the petitioner had prior knowledge or any reason to believe that the woman was trafficked. The judge also noted that under the existing legal framework, a customer at a brothel is not covered under sections he was charged with under the Act. The judge also held that the ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 370(2) of the IPC were not satisfied in this case. The judge accordingly ruled that allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the legal process and quashed the same.
Irrigation engineers challenge notional seniority
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ appeal concerning the grant of seniority and notional promotion in the irrigation department. The panel comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Swapna Putta and two others. The appellants were recruited as assistant executive engineers (AEEs) through the Public Service Commission in 2007 and 2008. Earlier, the appellants challenged the notional promotion and seniority granted to their colleagues who were appointed by transfer from the post of Tracer to assistant executive engineers. The single judge dismissed the petitions, holding that the state government was justified in granting notional seniority and promotion to the transferred AEEs on par with their juniors, as a special case and one-time measure, considering the adverse impact of revised service rules in 2018. The Court observed that the petitioners did not challenge the promotions granted to the juniors of the unofficial respondents and, therefore, could not selectively challenge the notional promotion granted to them. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellants preferred present writ appeal seeking to set aside the judgment, contending that granting seniority and notional promotion to the unofficial respondents would adversely affect their promotional prospects to the post of deputy executive engineer. The panel ordered notice to the respondents.
