Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in a criminal appeal filed by an alleged serial killer convicted in a murder and robbery case. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was hearing a plea filed by Kommu Ramulu Chittodu. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court after being found guilty of offences under the IPC. The prosecution alleged that he was a habitual offender involved in rape, robbery and killing of victims. Similar cases indicate that such accused are often booked in multiple murder-for-gain cases across Telangana, with investigations revealing a pattern of targeting vulnerable women and stealing their valuables after the crime. Counsel for the appellant, Mohammad Adnan, argued that the prosecution case rests entirely on the “last seen” theory, claiming that the theatre staff had last seen the accused and the victim together when they went to watch a movie. Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial link to support this theory. Although the investigating officer claimed that a movie ticket was recovered during the inquest over the victim’s body, the ticket was neither exhibited before the trial court nor supported by the panch witness. He also pointed to a delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade and argued that, in the absence of descriptive particulars, relying on such evidence would be unsafe. The defence further submitted that the accused was arrested nearly three months after the incident and the prosecution failed to explain the “suspicious circumstances” leading to the arrest. It also questioned the alleged recovery of the gold ornaments of the victim, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the goldsmith and did not exhibit the alleged deposit receipts. Referring to medical evidence, counsel said the post-mortem doctor noted no weapon injuries and stated that death could have possibly occurred due to a fall from a height. Invoking the doctrine of two possible views, counsel argued that the interpretation favourable to the accused must be accepted. He further contended that even if the prosecution case is accepted, the offence would at best fall under aggravated robbery under provisions of IPC. However, opposing the appeal, the additional public prosecutor submitted that the chain of circumstantial evidence clearly pointed towards the guilt of the accused and that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record. After hearing the submissions from both sides, the Division Bench reserved the matter for judgment.HC hears plea on police promotionsA two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court continued hearing a batch of writ petitions filed challenging promotions to the post of additional superintendent of police (non-cadre). The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. Mohiuddin, was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by N. Venu Gopal Reddy and others questioning the action of the state authorities in effecting promotions without completing the required preparatory exercise in the feeder cadres. It was the case of the petitioners that the state authorities made certain promotions to the post of superintendent of police (non-cadre) without first reviewing the earlier ad hoc promotions made in the cadre of additional superintendent of police and without preparing year-wise promotion panels as mandated under Rule 6 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities were required to first prepare year-wise panels in the cadre of additional superintendent of police after completing the process of final allocation in the cadre of deputy superintendent of police pursuant to the final seniority list issued on November 29, 2018. He further contended that promotions were made without undertaking the necessary preparatory exercise in the feeder cadre, which was contrary to the applicable service rules. The authorities considered the cases of officers junior to the rank of petitioners but excluded the petitioners on the ground that they had not completed the required service in the cadre of addl superintendent of police. Such action was arbitrary and discriminatory when the foundational exercise of preparing year-wise promotion panels and finalising the seniority position had not yet been completed, the petitioner contended. The petitioners, therefore, sought directions to prepare year-wise panels for promotion from deputy superintendent of police to additional superintendent of police in accordance with Rule 6 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. Accordingly, the panel adjourned the matter for further hearing.Peddapalli Bar row in HCJustice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday took on file a writ plea challenging the proceedings issued by the Bar Council of India concerning the leadership dispute in the Peddapalli Bar Association. The writ petition was filed by Lakide Bhaskar, president of the Peddapalli Bar Association, challenging the intervention of the Bar Council of India (BCI) in the internal dispute of the association. The petitioner contended that he was duly elected president of the Peddapalli Bar Association and that a controversial resolution passed by certain members removed him from the post and suspended his membership. It was further argued that the proceedings triggered a serious governance crisis within the bar body. He further contended that when he approached the Bar Council of Telangana, the state bar body examined the issue and set aside the resolution, restoring the earlier position. However, the dispute took another turn when an advocate from the Peddapalli Bar Association invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act. Acting on the revision, the Bar Council of India passed an interim order suspending the decision of the Telangana Bar Council, effectively reviving the disputed resolution that had removed the petitioner from the presidency. The petitioner claimed that the said order of BCI was in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further contended that the impugned action interfered with his professional rights and the democratic functioning of the bar association. The judge posted the case for further hearing.
Source link
बढ़ते तापमान से गेहूं की फसल पर खतरा, कीटों से बचाव के लिए किसानों को विशेषज्ञों की सलाह दी जा रही है।
मार्च की गर्मी से गेहूं की फसल को कीटों से बचाव के लिए किसानों को अलर्ट मार्च में…
