The Court faulted the trial court on conclusions based on assumptions not supported by the evidence on record.
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside the life sentence imposed on a person for patricide. The panel of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The panel comprising was dealing with an appeal filed by Gondla Ramulu @ Ramesh, who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC by a Sessions Court in Medak district. Reappreciating the evidence, the panel found that several prosecution witnesses, including close family members and panch witnesses, turned hostile. The Court further observed that the testimony of the witness projected as an eyewitness was not of such quality as to sustain a conviction. The panel also noted that the alleged weapons were not recovered from the accused. It ruled that discrepancies in documentary and forensic evidence, including inconsistencies relating to the description of the deceased’s clothing, create serious doubts about the prosecution version. The Court faulted the trial court on conclusions based on assumptions not supported by the evidence on record. Reiterating that a conviction cannot be founded on conjectures or surmises, particularly in a case resting substantially on circumstantial evidence, the panel held that the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the prison authorities were directed to release him forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
Road widening for New OGH challenged before HC
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court entertained a writ plea challenging the proceedings initiated for road widening of a 60-feet approach road to the New Osmania General Hospital. The writ petitioners Mohd Abdul Mannan Khan and others, would contend that they submitted their objections under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, before the Special Deputy Collector opposing the acquisition of their properties for the hospital approach road. It is contended that the objections were rejected by the authority while passing orders under Section 15(3) of the Act. The authorities justify acquisition on the ground of public purpose. The judge observed that even in such cases, the Authority is required to assign reasons while rejecting objections of affected persons and remarked that the impugned order appeared to be bereft of reasons. The judge also probed whether there were adjacent open lands and, on being informed in the affirmative and that such lands belonged to the government, questioned why those lands could not be utilised instead of impacting private properties. The judge further observed that merely because approvals were granted to a particular alignment, the authorities were not precluded from revisiting the plan. The judge directed the authorities to place on record the report required under Section 15 indicating the number of persons affected by the proposed road and posted the matter for further hearing. The judge also observed that road planning must ensure minimum invasion of private rights while scrutinising the rejection of objections raised by affected landowners.
Writ petition against Medical Council enquiry rejected as premature
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court rejected a writ plea challenging the legality of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Telangana State Medical Council against the Director of a Sangareddy-based hospital. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Dr. P. Swamy Goud, Director of Sunrise Hospital, challenging a show-cause notice issued on October 29, 2025, under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. The proceedings stem from a complaint relating to the treatment of a seven-year-old boy who sustained a fracture. The petitioner would contend that the child was treated in accordance with accepted medical standards and that the matter was already examined and closed by the District Medical and Health Officer after obtaining expert medical opinion. Despite this, the Medical Council issued the impugned notice initiating disciplinary proceedings. Dr. Goud would contend that the notice was issued without a valid or maintainable complaint and in violation of the procedural safeguards prescribed under the regulations. Opposing the plea, the Medical Council submitted that the writ petition was premature as it challenged only a show-cause notice and not a final order, and that the Council was acting within its statutory powers. The judge observed that the matter involves the scope of disciplinary jurisdiction of medical regulatory bodies and judicial intervention at this stage is impermissible. It accordingly directed the Medical Council to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
