HC Reserves Verdict In Serial Killer’s Appeal
Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the criminal appeal of an alleged serial killer convicted in a murder and robbery case. The panel, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice BR Madhusudhan Rao, was hearing a plea filed by Kommu Ramulu Chittodu. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the first instance court after being found guilty of crimes under the TMK. The prosecution alleged that he was a habitual criminal involved in rape, robbery and murder of victims. Similar cases show that such accused are frequently involved in multiple gratuitous murder cases across Telangana; investigations reveal a tendency to target vulnerable women and steal valuables after the crime. Appellant’s lawyer, Mohammad Adnan, argued that the prosecution relied entirely on the “last seen” theory and claimed that the theater staff had last seen the accused and the victim together when they went to watch a movie.
The lawyer argued that the prosecution failed to establish the important connection that would support this theory. Although the investigating officer claimed that a movie ticket was found during the inquest on the deceased’s body, the ticket was neither exhibited before the court nor corroborated by the panel witness. He also noted a delay in the conduct of the Test Identity Parade and argued that it would be unsafe to rely on such evidence in the absence of clarifying details. The defense also argued that the defendant was arrested approximately three months after the incident and that the prosecution did not disclose the “suspicious circumstances” that led to the arrest. He also questioned the claim that the victim’s gold jewelery was seized, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the jeweler and failed to produce the alleged deposit receipts. Citing medical evidence, the lawyer said the autopsy doctor did not note any gunshot wounds and stated that the death was likely due to a fall from a height. Proposing the doctrine of two possible views, the lawyer argued that the interpretation in favor of the defendant should be accepted. He also argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted, the crime would at best fall within the scope of aggravated robbery under the provisions of the IPC. However, opposing the appeal, the additional prosecutor argued that the circumstantial chain of evidence clearly pointed to the guilt of the accused and the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence on record. After hearing submissions from both parties, the Divisional Board decided the matter.
HC heard the defense regarding police promotions
The two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court continued hearing a batch of writ petitions seeking tough promotions to the post of additional police inspector (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 state authorities in influencing promotions without completing necessary preparatory work in feeder cadres. It was the case of the petitioners that the state authorities made certain promotions to the post of police inspector (non-cadre) without first reviewing the earlier temporary promotions made in the post of additional superintendent of police and preparing annual promotion panels as mandated under Rule 6 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that after completing the process of final allocation to the post of deputy chief of police as per the final seniority list published on November 29, 2018, the authorities should first prepare annual panels on the post of additional superintendent of police. He also alleged that promotions were made in the feeder cadre without carrying out necessary preparatory work, contrary to the prevailing service rules. Authorities considered cases of officers who were junior to the petitioner’s rank but excluded the petitioners on the grounds that they had not completed the required service on the police chief staff.
The petitioner argued that such action was arbitrary and discriminatory when the ground work of preparing annual promotion panels and finalizing seniority position had not yet been completed. The petitioners, therefore, sought directions from the deputy commissioner of police to prepare annual panels for promotion to additional commissioner of police in accordance with AP State Rule 6 and Subordinate Service Rules. For this reason, the committee postponed the matter for the continuation of the hearing.
Peddapalli Bar row in HC
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday filed a writ petition challenging the suit issued by the Bar Council of India regarding the leadership dispute in the Peddapalli Bar Association. The writ petition was filed by Lakide Bhaskar, president of Peddapalli Bar Association, objecting to the intervention of the Bar Council of India (BCI) in the internal dispute of the association. The petitioner alleged that he was duly elected president of Peddapalli Bar Association and a controversial decision taken by some members removed him from office and his membership was suspended. It was also claimed that the trial triggered a serious management crisis within the bar association.
He also claimed that when he approached the Telangana Bar Council, the state bar body looked into the matter and set aside the decision and reverted to the previous position. But the dispute took another turn when a lawyer 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 issued an interim order suspending the decision of the Telangana Bar Association, effectively reviving the controversial decision that suspended the petitioner from the chairmanship.
The petitioner alleged that the impugned decision of BCI violated the principles of natural justice. It was further alleged that the impugned action interfered with the applicant’s professional rights and the democratic functioning of the bar association. The judge sent the case for further hearing.
