Telangana Legal Briefs | Man in Murder Case Due to Flawed Declaration

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on a man for murder, holding that the trial court had erred in relying on a written complaint and treating it as a dying declaration without corroborative evidence. The panel comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice J. Anil Kumar was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Kotte Rajashekar Chinna Yellaiah. As per the prosecution, Barmala Mashanna had lodged a written complaint with the Kollapur police alleging assault by the appellant and others. The complaint was treated as a dying declaration after Mashanna succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution relied on the recovery of sticks allegedly used in the assault, based on a confession by the accused. Counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution's case was unsupported by eyewitnesses and relied solely on official witnesses. It was pointed out that the other injured person, who was cited as a victim, turned hostile and denied the incident. The scribe of the written complaint was not examined, and the doctor who treated the deceased did not record any injury history or mention the accused’s name. The additional public prosecutor argued that the complaint qualified as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. The panel observed that there was no independent or medical evidence linking the accused to the crime and that treating the complaint as a dying declaration in the absence of corroboration was not justified. The panel noted serious lapses including non-examination of the scribe and lack of follow-up by the investigating officer. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The court directed that the bail bonds be discharged and any fine amount paid be refunded.

HC quashes granite slabs seizure, releases vehicle

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court directed the release of a vehicle and granite slabs detained by the authorities on the grounds of alleged non-payment of royalty. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Kanumuri Sunadham. The case arose when officials from the mines and geology department detained a lorry, which was transporting polished granite slabs from Markapur in Andhra Pradesh to Pune, Maharashtra, on suspicion that the goods were not finished and were being moved without valid proof of royalty payment. The petitioner claimed to be the owner of the vehicle and argued that the goods were finished granite slabs supported by a tax invoice and an e-way bill generated through the GST portal. Despite presenting all documents — including vehicle registration, permit, and insurance — the authorities refused to release the vehicle. The petitioner contended that finished goods do not require proof of royalty payment under the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. The respondents submitted that the slabs appeared to be semi-finished or uncut and therefore required royalty documentation. A notice was issued to the petitioner on March 28, 2025, demanding a penalty of ₹1,76,400 or evidence of lawful procurement. The judge noted that in earlier similar cases, it had ruled that goods described as finished granite slabs when backed by tax invoices and e-way bills, do not warrant seizure solely due to the absence of royalty documents. The court observed that these previous orders had not been appealed, and therefore had attained finality. It emphasised that authorities are bound to act in accordance with the law, and must verify the description of the goods against the accompanying documentation before initiating any punitive action. The judge held that the petitioner stood on equal footing with the earlier cases, and was entitled to the same relief. The court directed the respondent authorities to verify whether the goods under transport matched the description in the invoice. If found to be finished goods, the vehicle and slabs must be released. However, if they were found to be semi-finished or uncut, the authorities were permitted to proceed in accordance with the law.

Toll plaza issue dismissed as NHAI denies encroachment

Justice P. Sam Koshy of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation court, disposed of a writ plea filed by multiple landowners from Rameshwarpally challenging the construction of a toll plaza on the National Highway-44 (Old NH-7) in front of their properties. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by Jillala Bal Reddy and others, contending that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and its contractor M/s North Telangana Expressway Pvt. Ltd were encroaching upon their private lands without acquisition or notice, and in violation of the gazette notifications issued in 2011 under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act. The petitioners alleged that Toll Plaza No. 2 was being constructed without following due process and without acquiring their lands, in violation of the Constitution. The petitioners sought to set aside the permission granted to the private respondent to proceed with the construction. However, the standing counsel for NHAI submitted that the construction was confined strictly to the land duly acquired under the 2011 notification and that there was no deviation or encroachment into the petitioners’ private properties. Taking note of this categorical submission, the judge observed that since the respondent authorities had clarified that no unauthorised construction was being undertaken, there was no reason to keep the writ petition pending. The judge accordingly disposed of the writ plea.

4. TSRTC told to reopen food stall after termination stayed

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court, sitting in the Vacation Court, suspended a termination order issued by the TGRTC against a food stall operator at the Karimnagar bus station, citing violations of natural justice. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Ch. Raju, who challenged the final termination order dated May 13, 2025, issued by the deputy regional manager of TGRTC. The order cancelled his licence for a fast-food stall at the bus station on the grounds of delayed fee payment. The petitioner contended that he had been running the fast-food business under a valid licence deed dated November 9, 2023, for a five-year term. Due to a serious illness in August 2024, he had delayed payments between August and December 2024, but the court had earlier granted him time to pay, which he complied with. However, citing continued health issues and financial strain, the petitioner again delayed payments from February to April 2025. Without issuing a fresh notice or providing an opportunity to respond, TGRTC issued a final termination order on May 13. The judge observed that, prima facie, the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and directed TSRTC to reopen the stall, subject to the petitioner clearing dues for February and March within two weeks. The judge also directed him to pay dues for April and May within four weeks from the date of reopening and to continue making timely payments thereafter. The matter has been posted for further hearing on June 23.