Special Circumstances Different from Sufficient Case: Telangana HC

Update: 2025-01-13 20:19 GMT
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court set aside the conviction order against Marri Sudhakar Reddy and four others in a case relating to the murder of two women, Susheela Devi (D1) and her daughter Manju Rani (D2) who went missing in August 2007. (Image: DC)

Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court drew attention to the statutory difference between “special circumstances” and “sufficient cause” while dealing with a petition seeking to defend a summary suit.

A retired employee Vengala Ramanaiah of Karimnagar filed a civil suit against another retired employee V. Vijaya Maruti Prasad for the recovery of `16,85,260 with future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the basis of a promissory note under summary procedure laid down under the Civil Procedure Code.

When the defendant did not appear, he was set exparte. But later he filed two petitions to set aside the exparte decree and to grant leave to defend the suit, as argued that at that time he was suffering from fever and body pains.

He went to Dr Bhoom Reddy’s Hospital for treatment, and it was diagnosed as Dengue fever and started treatment at the hospital and at his house. He was advised to rest and not to move from bed.

The applications were contested on the ground that the petitioner has to show ‘special circumstances’ instead of ‘sufficient cause’. The civil court dismissed the defendant’s application and decreed the suit.

On a complete consideration of the original record, the judge faulted the trial court for hearing the case prior to the statutory period.

Detailing the procedure, Justice Lakshman said that the law required defendants be given 10 days from the date of receipt of the summons.

On appearance by the defendant, the plaintiff shall serve summons upon the defendant for judgement at the hearing, the defendant for judgement at the hearing, the defendant will be entitled to move the court an application for leave to defend the suit.

In the present case, the trial court did not follow the said procedure. Thus, the procedure adopted by the trial court is against the purport of the legal provision. The court also said it is relevant to note that the petitioner being layman insofar as legal proceedings are concerned and, therefore, it is the duty of counsel to apprise him of the legal position properly. For the mistake committed by learned counsel, the petitioner cannot be suffered and allowed the petition.

Court sets aside conviction of accused

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court set aside the conviction order against Marri Sudhakar Reddy and four others in a case relating to the murder of two women, Susheela Devi (D1) and her daughter Manju Rani (D2) who went missing in August 2007.

They were last seen in a Tata Sumo car with the accused Sudhakar Reddy, the son of Susheela Devi. The deceased went missing and their bodies were subsequently found in the village outskirts.

The Chinthapally police registered the case and transferred it to Saroornagar. On the basis of confession and recovery, the investigation charged the accused and they were sentenced.

The two-judge bench set aside the punishment finding multiple errors in the reasoning of the sessions judge.

The court found that nowhere in the evidence of the investigation officers was it mentioned as to how the accused were identified. Admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted for PW9 to identify A1, the bench added.

Speaking and authoring the verdict for the bench, Justice Surender said the recovery of the gold ornaments from the hollow of the tamarind tree also is doubtful.

“There is no reason why all the appellants have taken the ornaments and kept the ornaments in the hollow of a tree except for a gold chain, which was taken to P.W. 15. As rightly ornaments ought to have been produced before the magistrate for rules of practice. The said seizure of ornaments from the hollow of the tamarind tree is doubtful when the tree is in the open and accessible to everyone and at a considerable distance of 100 km from Hyderabad. A1 and A2 are residents of Kothagudem and A3 and A4 are residents of Hyderabad,” the judge said.

The bench also observed that every circumstance of (i) last seen theory; (ii) arrest; (iii) recovery; (iv) motive are suspicious and doubtful. It noted that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt and for the said reason, the conviction of the appellants was set aside by the panel.

Tags:    

Similar News