Telangana: The High Court has overturned the death sentence of a woman convicted of killing a child.
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Friday set aside the death sentence awarded to a woman convicted of killing her child. The panel, comprising Justices K. Lakshman and V. Ramakrishna Reddy, allowed the criminal appeal filed by Banothu Bharathi alias Lasya and answered the reference for confirmation of the death sentence in the negative. The appeal was against the order of the Sessions Judge of Suryapet, who had sentenced the accused to death for the murder of her seven-month-old child. Confirmation of the sentence by the High Court was mandatory. The application for confirmation was heard along with the criminal appeal. The prosecution’s case was that the motive for the child’s murder was a belief in ‘Sarpa Dosha’ (a belief in a curse related to snakes). Advocate Monica P. Pol argued that the trial court had overlooked the defense of insanity. Before delivering the judgment, and keeping in mind the sensitivity expressed by the Supreme Court, the panel had appointed a mitigation expert to examine the mental condition and circumstances of the convict. P. Subhash, appearing for the accused, submitted that the mitigation expert’s report clearly detailed the medical condition of the accused. Relying on the mitigation expert’s report, the panel concluded that the accused’s actions could not be considered as having the necessary ‘mens rea’ for the purpose of punishment, let alone the death penalty. The panel observed that the mitigation expert’s report stated that the accused was suffering from both medical and legal insanity. Therefore, she was entitled to the defenses available under the Penal Code. The panel allowed the appeal; the convict, who is currently lodged in Chanchalguda jail, was directed to be sent for continued medical treatment.
In a separate development, Justice Nagesh Bheemapakka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the validity of the lost and found rules framed by the authorities of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA) in Hyderabad. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Fizani Hussain, who appeared in person, seeking to declare the rules framed by the Airport Operations Manager and others as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The petitioner challenged the restrictions imposed on victims or owners of lost property. Under the rules, the owner was prohibited from entering the lost and found room or personally viewing the relevant CCTV footage at the airport. According to the petitioner, such restrictions violate the principles of natural justice and create a lack of transparency in handling lost property. The petitioner sought directions from the respondents to disclose how the lost property was disposed of, and questioned whether such items were deposited in the government ‘malkhana’ (storehouse) or distributed among airport officials. The petitioner also complained about a black check-in bag that was allegedly lost at RGIA. He argued that if the bag is not found in the lost and found room, RGIA, Hyderabad, should be directed to pay ₹1.5 lakh as compensation for the lost baggage due to negligence in security and dereliction of duty. Further, the petitioner sought ₹5 lakh in compensation for the alleged mental and physical harassment, pain, and suffering endured since March 4, 2025, along with litigation costs. Directions were also sought for the airport authorities at RGIA to strengthen and upgrade the security, surveillance, and monitoring systems. After hearing the initial arguments, the judge directed the respondents to file their response in the matter.
Telangana High Court Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy on Friday refused to grant an interim order in a contempt case alleging that municipal corporation officials were indiscriminately picking up stray dogs in the name of implementing a Supreme Court order. The Association for Animal Shelter and Rescue Aid (AASRA) argued in the contempt case that a defined procedure must be followed before identifying and picking up community dogs. The petitioner submitted that no institutions had been designated, no boundaries or fences had been erected, and no nodal officer had been appointed, making the process of catching community dogs in those areas arbitrary, cruel, and a waste of public funds. The counsel appearing for the state denied the allegations and argued that only aggressive-looking community dogs were being picked up and that there had been no violation of previous directions issued by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The GHMC’s counsel argued that the matter should be transferred to the Supreme Court, which is hearing the larger issue.
