HYDERABAD: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court emphasised the need for stringent measures to prevent illegal animal slaughter. The judge was hearing two different writ petitions from opposite stances on the subject. Gau Gyan Foundation, the petitioner, sought several directives to ensure the proper implementation of laws related to animal transportation and slaughter, especially on the eve of Bakrid. The petitioner argued that the police failed to register an FIR based on a complaint made in June 2021, through WhatsApp. The petitioner sought a declaration that was illegal and unconstitutional. The judge directed that the seized animals should not be sold or slaughtered until after Bakrid, setting the next hearing for June 19. The court also heard a writ petition filed by Mohammed Raheemuddin, involving the seizure of 20 bulls from a private property in Malakpet, Hyderabad, under Crime 208 of 2024, on April 29. The petitioner claimed that the seizure was conducted without proper authority, violating Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and the Telangana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977. While in the former writ petition, it was inaction that was complained against, in the latter the action taken was challenged as arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Though, earlier, the court had required certification by a veterinary doctor, the court was informed that the bulls had been sold to private parties before the court's order could be passed. Justice Reddy ordered the respondents to file an affidavit confirming the sale of the cattle. The judge posted the case for further orders.
Lifer for seven who attacked couple
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court confirmed a sentence of life imprisonment to a gang of seven accused of various offences including an attempt to molest a woman, dacoity, and throwing a snake at the victims in a farmhouse at Shaheennagar. The panel of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha dismissed a batch of appeals filed by seven accused who were sentenced by the Second Special Sessions Judge for atrocities against women, in Cyberabad. According to the prosecution, the family of Victim No. 1 had proceeded to the farmhouse in July 2014 and left the premises around 1.30 pm. Later that day, the accused persons finding the victim and his fiancé alone attacked the premises, dragged the victims, ripped their clothing, took photographs, threatened to put up their seminude pictures on social media, threw a snake at them and bolted with gold, cash and other items. On a detailed appreciation of evidence in the matter, the Sessions Judge in May 2016 found the seven accused guilty of assault to outrage modesty, house trespass, hurt, enmity between people, and dacoity and sentenced them. The panel speaking through Justice Lakshman said that the accused behaved inhumanly with the victims, removed the clothing of the victims and tortured them by leaving a snake on them. “Even they have taken photographs and videographs of PWs. 1 and 2. The appellants have threatened them not to reveal the incident to anybody, failing which they will upload their photographs and videographs to social networks. Thus, the offence committed by the appellants is a heinous one. Therefore, they deserve the punishment of life imprisonment. On consideration of the said aspects, the trial court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 395 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.” The panel also took on record that there were nine cases including offences under the Wildlife Protection Act and Arms Act against the accused at the relevant time pointing to their criminal history. After dealing with the evidence and the law, the panel said “As discussed above, the offence committed by the accused is heinous. They have a criminal history in the manner stated above. PD Act has been initiated against Accused No.1. However, they were acquitted in most of the cases…. In the light of the above discussion, this court is not inclined to reduce the sentence by taking a lenient view.”
