The panel ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of evidence linking the advocate to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of Telangana High Court reiterated that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. The panel set aside the conviction of an advocate in a murder case. The panel comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, acquitted an advocate Potham Jagannadham Naidu (A1) in a murder case, overturning the conviction handed down by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The panel ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of evidence linking the advocate to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The case revolved around the gruesome murder of K. Sunitha, whose dismembered body parts were recovered from the Musi River. The prosecution alleged that the advocate lured the victim to his pent house, killed her, and disposed of the remains at the behest of A2, who had financial disputes with the deceased’s husband. However, the panel found several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The evidence presented failed to establish a conclusive timeline, with conflicting testimonies regarding the date of the victim’s disappearance. The prosecution claimed that A1 used a stolen SIM card to communicate with the deceased, but no call records or subscriber details were produced to prove ownership. The prosecution’s assertion that A1 sold the victim’s jewellery for ₹3.85 lakh was also unsupported, as no receipts, purchase records, or test identification procedures were conducted to confirm the jewellery’s origin. Forensic evidence, a crucial factor in the case, was riddled with errors. The DNA report linking the recovered body parts to the victim contained a glaring date discrepancy, showing June 7, 2013, instead of the actual forensic analysis date in 2015. The expert attributed this to a printing error, but the panel rejected this explanation, stating that an apology could not validate flawed evidence. Additionally, critical evidence, such as the alleged murder weapon and the vehicle used to transport the body, was not sent for forensic examination. Citing established legal principles on circumstantial evidence, the panel emphasised that every link in the chain of evidence must be proved conclusively, which the prosecution failed to do in this case. The panel concluded that the inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence made it impossible to sustain the conviction. In light of these findings, the bench set aside A1’s conviction and ordered his immediate release, unless required in another case. The appeal against A2 was also dismissed.
Tribals seek licence to quarry Mulugu sand
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court permitted a tribal society to apply for sand mining in Mulugu district. The appellant Sri Laxmi Swamy Sand Quarry Tribal Labour Contract Cooperative Society had unsuccessfully canvassed before the single judge seeking renewal of lease granted by the state government in favour of the Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation. When the lease period expired, the petitioner sought extension as a sub-lessee of the state corporation. A single judge dismissed the writ petition declaring that the petitioner had no locus standi. The panel of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara agreed with the single judge on this ruling. However, the panel permitted the petitioner to file an application before the appropriate authority in an independent capacity and claim the right to quarry the sand which according to the writ petitioner could not be done earlier due to the non-extension.
MD of TGSPDCL summoned in contempt case
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of Telangana High Court summoned the CMD of Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL) and other officials in a contempt case for allegedly failing to comply with the court’s directions regarding an appointment on humanitarian grounds. The judge admitted a contempt case filed by N. Pradeep, who was appointed as a junior lineman in 2008 on compassionate grounds following his father’s demise. However, he was later dismissed after it was discovered that the National Trade Certificate he had submitted was not genuine. The petitioner claimed that the alleged fake certificate was not submitted by him but by someone else on his behalf. He also contended that the disciplinary action taken against him was flawed, as the charge memo had been issued by an unauthorised officer. While hearing the contempt case, the judge acknowledged that fraud cannot be condoned but emphasised that the petitioner’s young age at the time of appointment and humanitarian considerations warranted a second chance. The judge had previously directed TGSPDCL to appoint the petitioner to a suitable post within eight weeks, provided he submitted genuine educational certificates. The respondents allegedly failed to comply with the court’s directions. During the hearing, the judge noted the lack of response from the respondents. Taking serious note of the delay, the judge ordered the issuance of Form-1 notice to the respondents and posted the matter for further adjudication.
Court can order for sample signatures: HC
Justice K. Sujana of Telangana High Court upheld the power of a trial court requiring an accused to provide sample signatures and handwriting samples for investigation purposes. The judge dismissed a criminal petition filed by Eranolla Lokeshwara, an accused in an FIR registered at Kukatpally Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Counsel argued the petitioner had not received notice under Section 41-A of CrPC and questioned the trial court's authority to issue a notice under Section 91 for comparison of disputed signatures. The petitioner was directed to appear before the investigating officer and provide sample signatures and handwriting samples for investigation. The judge upheld the impugned order and affirmed that Section 311-A of CrPC empowers a magistrate to order a person to provide specimen signatures or handwriting for investigation purposes. The judge also noted that the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigating officer in a previous order passed in another case but had refused to provide the requested documents and signatures. The judge further observed that obtaining specimen signatures does not violate an accused person's rights, even if they are cooperating with the investigation. The judge also observed that the definition of "investigation" includes the collection of evidence, and there is no force in the contention that a notice under Section 91 of CrPC is unnecessary when the accused is not arrested.
