Telangana HC Rules on Evidence Admission in Criminal Trials

Hyderabad: Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court declared that improper admission of evidence shall not in itself be a ground for a fresh trial in a criminal case dealing with section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act pointed out that the judgment however “Independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that if the rejection evidence had been received it ought not to have varied the decision. The judge said that where the appellant court can always act on the admissible evidence on record. The judge issued consequential direction to the Additional District Judge Nalgonda while dealing with a criminal petition filed by T. Sravan Kumar and Mohd. Abdul Bhari, accused in a case before Special Sessions Judge for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases- Cum- II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District. P. Balasamy an employee of LIC would complain that his son was stabbed and died. The arrayed accused are petitioners before High Court Complaining that in the trial the prosecution brought on record the confession statement of accused No.1 and 6 and reiterated the same in his evidence for which the defence counsel objected for recording the said evidence. The trial court has passed the impugned order stating that though the confession of accused Nos.1 and 6 was not admissible in evidence, the objection of the defence was overruled since the confession revealed a pertinent piece of information i.e., Mo.6 – Mobile phone. Hence, the present criminal petitions. Counsel would contend that a confession made in front of a police officer is not acceptable as evidence. it is the only part that is admissible that results in a factual discovery. He further submitted that the entire confession made by Accused Nos. 1 and 6 is not admissible as evidence, it is therefore, illegal to record it. Replying on a ruling of the Apex Court, Justice Sujana said the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which ‘distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered’. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statements that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the article is not indicative of the information given. The judge accordingly disposed the criminal case.

HC grants bail to accused in Mephedrone drug case

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of Telangana High Court granted regular bail to an accused allegedly involved with several others, in the production, manufacture, possession and warehousing of about 136.275 kgs. of Mephedrone, a psychotropic substance, without a valid license. The judge dealt with a bail petition filed by Matsyagiri Keesari Naresh, who contended that he was only looking after the construction of shed and was no way concerned with the alleged offences. It was also alleged that the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence illegally and highhandedly seized an amount of Rs.17 lakhs belonging to the brother of petitioner. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of the judge that the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged search and seizure and the contents of the complaint which state that the petitioner entered into the premises and was taken into custody after completion of search and seizure. The counsel for the petitioner also stated that the entire investigation is completed and that the petitioner was suffering with Type-II Diabetes Mellitus. In view of the same, the petitioner prayed for grant of bail. However, the bail petition was strongly opposed by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) alleging direct involvement of the petitioner. The SPP also brought to the notice of the judge the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, alleging involvement in two murder cases. After perusing the material record, the judge noted that the whole case of the prosecution was based on petitioner voluntarily explaining his role by entering the premises during the search proceedings. The judge observed that neither of the co-accused gave the name of the petitioner nor was the petitioner apprehended by the police. The judge further observed that prima facie, it was quite unbelievable that the accused entered the premises during search proceedings and explained every detail to the police, which led to his own apprehension. The judge concluded that the truth or otherwise of the offences alleged against the petitioner is subject matter of trial. Also considering the fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody for almost 10 months and is suffering with Type-II diabetes Mellitus, the judge deemed that it was a fit case for grant of conditional bail.

High Court Denies Relief to Hookah Restaurant

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court refused to grant any relief to Aarav Sai Enterprises for continuing to offer flavored hookah within its restaurant. The judge was hearing a writ plea challenging the actions of Nagole Station House Officer in interfering with the business operations of the petitioner. The petitioner would allege that it was offering hookah in a designated smoking area within its restaurant and coffee shop, in compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex court. During the hearing, the judge raised critical questions about the regulation of hookah in comparison to cigarettes, asking whether hookah is subject to the same legal standards. The judge remarked that if hookah is not regularized like cigarettes, there would be no grounds for passing any orders in favour of the businesses. The judge also questioned as to why the court should intervene if there are no existing regulations for hookah consumption. The judge also noted that if the petitioner’s counsel argued that a specific area for hookah is designated, then they would need to prove that it is not harmful to health, without proper regulation in place, the judge declined to grant any interim relief and posted the matter for further hearing.