High Court Sets Aside Death for Woman Convicted of Murdering Baby
Hyderabad:A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Friday stayed the death sentence awarded to a woman convicted of filicide. The bench, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy, allowed the guilty plea filed by Banothu Bharathi alias Lasya and responded negatively to the reference to confirm the death penalty. The appeal was against the order of the Sessions Judge at Suryapet, which sentenced the accused to death for the murder of his seven-month-old child. The sentence had to be approved by the Supreme Court. The application for approval was heard along with the criminal objection. The prosecution claimed that the reason for the filicide murder was the belief in ‘sarpa dosham’. Attorney Monica P. Pole argued that the trial court ignored the insanity defense. Before the decision, in line with the sensitivities expressed by the Supreme Court, the panel appointed a mitigating person to examine the mental status and conditions of the convict. P. Subash, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, stated that the mitigating report clearly pointed out the defendant’s health condition. The panel relied on the report of the mitigating authority when concluding that the defendant’s action could not be considered ‘mens rea’ in terms of conviction, let alone the death penalty. The board noted that the mitigating report stated that the defendant suffered from both mental and legal insanity. Therefore, he is entitled to benefit from the defenses under the criminal law. The Board allowed the appeal; The convict, who is currently in Chanchalguda jail, has been instructed to be sent for further medical treatment.
Lost property: HC will hear the defense
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the legality of lost and found items identified by the authorities of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA) in Hyderabad. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by advocate Fizani Husain, one of the parties seeking to declare the rules framed by the airport operations manager and others as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner challenged restrictions imposed on victims or owners of missing property. The rules prohibited the owner from entering the lost and found room or personally viewing relevant CCTV footage from the airport. According to the petitioner, such restrictions violated the principles of natural justice and created transparency in the processing of lost items. The petitioner sought directions from the respondents to explain how the lost items were disposed of and questioned whether these items were deposited in a government ‘malkhana’ or otherwise distributed among the airport authorities. The petitioner raised his complaint, inter alia, regarding a black check-in bag allegedly lost at RGIA. He argued that if the bag could not be traced in the lost and found room, the RGIA, Hyderabad would be directed to pay ₹ 1.5 lakh for the value of the lost items for the alleged security breaches and breach of duty. Additionally, compensation of ₹ 5 lakh was sought for the mental and physical abuse, pain and suffering allegedly suffered by the petitioner since March 4, 2025, along with litigation expenses. Further directions were sought to request the airport authorities to strengthen and improve security, vigilance and surveillance mechanisms at RGIA. After hearing the preliminary arguments, the judge instructed the defendants to give their answers on the matter.
No interim decision in stray dog case
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Friday refused to grant an interim order in a contempt case complaining that municipal authorities were rounding up community dogs indiscriminately for the express purpose of implementing the Supreme Court order. Animal Shelter and Rescue Assistance Association (Aasara) argued in the contempt case that there is a recorded procedure to be followed before community dogs are identified and taken away. The petitioner pointed out that no institution has been identified, boundaries or fences have not been established and no nodal officer has been appointed, making the practice of catching community dogs in these areas repetitive, cruel and wasteful of public funds. Counsel appearing for the state denied the allegations and argued that only apparently aggressive community dogs were rounded up and that there was no violation of directions given earlier by both the High Court and the apex court. The GHMC lawyer argued that the matter should be transferred to the higher court which took up the bigger issue.
