Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 125-134]Khageshwar Rana V. Smt. Sundri Devi 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 125Mahendra Prasad Singh V. Ratan Ram 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 126Noor Islam vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 127 Mosomat Dukho Orain V. Sheikh Khalil 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 128M/s Aditya Enterprises and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 129Mithun Nonia @...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 125-134]
Khageshwar Rana V. Smt. Sundri Devi 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 125
Mahendra Prasad Singh V. Ratan Ram 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 126
Noor Islam vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 127
Mosomat Dukho Orain V. Sheikh Khalil 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 128
M/s Aditya Enterprises and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 129
Mithun Nonia @ Mithun Mahto V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 130
Rohit Chaudhary V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 131
Bholu Singh @ Bhu Kumar Singh @ Bholu Kumar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 132
Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 133
Sanjeeda Begam V. Md Eqbal 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 134
Judgements/Orders This Week
Case Title: Khageshwar Rana V. Smt. Sundri Devi
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 125
The Jharkhand High Court has held that in accordance with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, clerical and arithmetical mistakes can be rectified in judgements and decrees.
Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case, observed, “In view of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the clerical and arithmetical mistake can be rectified the judgment and decree as well. The learned Trial Court has committed illegality by refusing the application for amendment of the petitioner-plaintiff up to the extent of correction of the plot number and are as well, which sought to be corrected in view of the details of the property as shown in the plaint.”
Case Title: Mahendra Prasad Singh V. Ratan Ram
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 126
The Jharkhand High Court has held that while a sale deed is initially a private document, it becomes a public document upon registration with the Registrar. However, for the sale deed to be marked as exhibited in a trial, its execution must be proven by witnesses or parties involved in the sale deed.
Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case observed, “The sale deed is the private documents though after registration in the office of Registrar it become public document. But unless and until the execution of the sale deed is proved by the witnesses of the sale deed or the parties to the sale deed the exhibit on the same cannot be marked.”
Case Title: Noor Islam vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 127
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for the murder of his wife, despite the trial court's failure to verify the competency of an eleven-year-old child witness.
The High Court presided over by the division bench of Justices Ananda Sen and Subhash Chand, noted that Jasmira Khatoon's testimony remained rational and consistent even though the trial court did not evaluate her suitability as a witness.
Case Title: Mosomat Dukho Orain V. Sheikh Khalil
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 128
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled on the procedural aspect of filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), emphasising that the time limits prescribed are meant to expedite proceedings rather than obstruct them.
The Court clarified that while the standard time frame for filing a written statement is 30 days from the service of notice, the trial court can extend this period by an additional 60 days if justified.
Case Title: M/s Aditya Enterprises and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 129
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Deputy Commissioners in each district lack the authority to initiate and decide confiscation proceedings under the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017.
This decision, made by a division bench comprising Justice Anand Sen and Justice Subhash Chand, deems Rule 11(V) of the Jharkhand Mineral Rules, 2017, as ultra vires to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (parent Act).
Case Title: Mithun Nonia @ Mithun Mahto V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 130
The Jharkhand High Court has held that awarding unrealistically high maintenance in cases involving individuals employed in the unorganised sector can lead to difficulties in realising the maintenance amount.
In the case at hand, an order of maintenance was passed, awarding Rs. 3000/- to the wife of the petitioner and Rs. 1000/- each to his three children. A criminal revision petition was filed challenging this order.
Case Title: Rohit Chaudhary V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 131
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a mere breach of contract does not constitute an offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code without the presence of 'entrustment'. The provision penalises criminal breach of trust.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, “Offence of criminal breach of trust has been defined under section 405 I.P.C. and same is punishable under section 406 I.P.C. In order to bring offence of criminal breach of trust, entrustment should be there.”
Case Title: Bholu Singh @ Bhu Kumar Singh @ Bholu Kumar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 132
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted during the investigation is part of the investigative process and does not constitute substantive evidence. Thus, it emphasised that irregularities in conducting TIP is not a sufficient ground to discard the prosecution's case, if supported by other credible evidence.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, observed, “Even if it is assumed that there was irregularity in the TIP, which appears to be in the present case, that will by itself not erode the evidentiary value of the identification in the Court. identification in TIP during investigation is part of the investigation and it is not substantive piece of evidence. Any irregularity committed during investigation cannot be said to be the sole ground to discard the prosecution case in its entirety if it is otherwise proved by other cogent and reliable evidence.”
Case Title: Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 133
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the defense of the accused cannot be considered when considering a discharge petition.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, who presided over the case, remarked, "It appears that the points raised as a basis of discharge of the petitioners pertains to their defence in the case. The truth or falsify of the case could be decided only at the trial and probable defence of the petitioners cannot be accepted at the initial stage of proceeding, which requires to be substantiated during trial. It appears that the learned trial court has recorded sufficient reasons while rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioners."
Case Title: Sanjeeda Begam V. Md Eqbal
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 134
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that the mere age of a document does not serve as conclusive proof of its due execution.
The Court emphasised that prima facie proof is necessary to establish that a document is thirty years old to raise a presumption under Section 90 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, though this presumption remains rebuttable.
Other Developments
The Jharkhand High Court has granted interim bail to an accused who was in transit remand following an arrest by the Jharkhand Police in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, who presided over the case, noted the circumstances of the arrest and determined that releasing the petitioner on interim bail was justifiable for the sake of justice.