High Court Sets Aside Death for Woman Convicted of Murdering Baby

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Friday set aside the death penalty imposed on a woman convicted of filicide. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy allowed a criminal appeal filed by Banothu Bharathi alias Lasya and answered the reference for confirmation of death sentence in the negative. The appeal was against an order of the Sessions Judge in Suryapet sentencing the accused to death for the murder her seven-month-old child. The sentence required a confirmation by the High Court. The application for confirmation was heard along with the criminal appeal. It was the case of the prosecution that the motive for the filicide was the belief in ‘sarpa dosham’. Counsel Monica P. Pole argued that the trial court had ignored the defence of insanity. Prior to the judgment, and in keeping with the sensitivities voiced by the Supreme Court, the panel had appointed a mitigator to examine the mental state and circumstances of the convict. P. Subash, appearing for the accused, pointed out that the report of the mitigator had clearly pointed to the medical state of the accused. The panel relied on the report of the mitigator while concluding that the action of the accused could not be seen as ‘mens rea’ for the purposes of a conviction, leave alone a death sentence. The panel noted that the report of the mitigator stated the accused suffered both mental and legal insanity. She was thus entitled to the defences available under the penal code. The panel allowed the appeal; the convict presently lodged in teh Chanchalguda jail was directed to be sent for continuation of medical treatment.

Lost and found: HC to hear plea

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the legality of the lost and found rules framed by the authorities at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA), Hyderabad. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Fizani Husain, an advocate appearing party in person, seeking to declare the rules framed by the airport operations manager and others as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The petitioner challenged the restrictions imposed on victims or owners of lost property. The rules prohibited the owner from entering the lost and found room or personally viewing the relevant CCTV footage at the airport. According to the petitioner, such restrictions violated the principles of natural justice and created opacity in the handling of lost items. The petitioner sought a direction against the respondents to explain the manner in which lost articles were disposed of, questioning whether such items were deposited in a government ‘malkhana’ or otherwise distributed among airport officials. The petitioner inter alia raised a grievance regarding a black check-in bag, alleged to have gone missing at RGIA. She argued that in the event the bag was not traced in the lost and found room, a direction be issued against RGIA, Hyderabad, to pay ₹1.5 lakh towards the value of the lost articles, for alleged security lapses and breach of duty. Additionally, compensation of ₹5 lakh was claimed for mental and physical harassment, pain, and agony allegedly suffered by the petitioner since March 4, 2025, along with litigation costs. Further directions were sought to require the airport authorities to strengthen and upgrade security, vigilance, and surveillance mechanisms at the RGIA. After hearing the preliminary arguments, the judge directed the respondents to file their response in the matter.

No interim order in stray dogs case

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Friday refused to grant interim orders in a contempt case complaining that the municipal authorities were indiscriminately picking up community dogs in apparent implementation of the order of Supreme Court. The Association for Animal Shelter and Rescue Aid (Aasara) contended in the contempt case that there was an enlisted procedure required to be followed before identifying and picking up of community dogs. The petitioner pointed out that no institutions were identified, boundaries or fences were not set up and no nodal officers appointed, making the exercise of capturing community dogs in those areas repetitive, cruel and a waste of public funds. Counsel appearing for the state denied the allegations and argued that only seemingly aggressive community dogs were picked up and there was no violation of earlier directions issued both by the High Court and the apex court. Counsel for the GHMC argued that the matter should be transferred to the apex court which was seized of the larger issue.