Telangana High Court Upholds Life Sentence of Man Who Killed Father with Hammer

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court confirmed the life sentence imposed on a man who fatally struck his father with a hammer. The panel found that the evidence was cogent, consistent, and sufficient to sustain the conviction. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Ollepu Narsaiah and upheld his conviction in the year 2016 recorded by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Nizamabad. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused attacked his father, Mallaiah, in the early hours of January 2016, repeatedly striking him on the head with a hammer inside their hut. It was pointed out that a neighbour deposed that he witnessed the incident after hearing a commotion. While certain family members turned hostile, the court found the testimony of the eyewitness to be consistent and reliable, particularly as it was corroborated by a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The court noted that the medical evidence established a depressed skull fracture and subdural hematoma, with the post-mortem report confirming that the injuries were consistent with hammer blows. The Forensic Science Laboratory report further revealed the presence of human blood on the accused’s clothes as well as on the recovered weapon. Rejecting the defence argument that non-examination of the accused’s minor son weakened the prosecution case, the panel reiterated that it was the quality, and not the quantity, of evidence that was determinative. The panel accordingly held that there was no perversity or illegality in the trial court findings. The earlier bail of the appellant was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender within one month to undergo the life sentence.

Entertainment tax on DTH provider set aside

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside entertainment tax assessments imposed on a Direct-to-Home (DTH) television service provider, holding that satellite-based broadcasting services did not fall within the scope of the AP Entertainment Tax Act, 1939. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao allowed writ petition filed by Tata Sky Limited, challenging assessment orders issued by the Entertainment Tax Officer for five quarters between August 2006 and July 2007. It was pointed out that the disputed orders levied entertainment tax liabilities running into several lakhs of rupees, followed by recovery notices and that its DTH operations, which involved direct satellite-to-home transmission, wer fundamentally different from cable television services contemplated under the 1939 Act. It was argued that the statutory definition of “cable operator” specifically refers to entities receiving signals from master cable operators through terrestrial cable networks, a model not applicable to DTH technology. Per contra, the respondents contended that the definition of cable operator reflected a legislative intent to cover all signal-based transmission services delivering entertainment content for consideration, irrespective of technology. The panel observed that Section 3(11) of the Act unambiguously limited the term “cable operator” to a particular distribution framework. The panel emphasised that taxing statutes must be strictly construed and that omitted categories cannot be judicially inserted through interpretation. The panel ruled that DTH services fell squarely within the legislative domain of the Union, which covered broadcasting and telecommunications, and an attempt by the state to levy entertainment tax was untenable.

Farmers claim inadequate compensation

Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a plea of 14 agriculturists challenging the payment of allegedly inadequate compensation for land acquired for the Hyderabad Green Pharma City project. The judge was dealing with a writ petition is filed by Kagula Jangamma and 13 others, agriculturists from Kurmidda, Yacharam mandal of Rangareddy district, whose land holdings were acquired under a government order for establishing Hyderabad Green Pharmacity at Mucherla. The petitioners sought a declaration that the action of Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSIIC) and other respondent authorities in paying substantially lesser compensation/ex gratia amounts was illegal and unconstitutional. According to the petitioners, the authorities treated their land as assigned land instead of patta land and, on that basis, paid reduced compensation. The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to disburse the differential compensation payable to them in accordance with law. The judge directed the state to come up with its response and posted the matter for further hearing.