Jharkhand High Court Weekly Round-Up: 30 September – 6 October, 2024
Bhavya Singh
7 Oct 2024 6:15 PM IST
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 152-157]
Anand Kumar Dangi v. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 152
Kavita Devi @ Kabbo Devi and Ors vs Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 153
The State of Jharkhand vs Pawan Kumar Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 154
Budhu Nag Chatar V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 155
M/s Pama Pharmaceuticals V. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 156
Sanjeev Bhagat vs Tej Lal Bhagat and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 157
Judgements/Orders This Week
Case Title: Anand Kumar Dangi v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 152
The Jharkhand High Court recently set aside the death sentence awarded to a man by the trial court which had convicted him for the murder of his pregnant wife and 15-month-old infant child, citing "sketchy evidence" and the fact that the prosecution was unable to prove the circumstances of the case.
In doing so, the high court expressed its concern with the manner in which the alleged crime was investigated and prosecuted during trial adding that none of the circumstances were proved to show that the husband was complicit.
Case Title: Kavita Devi @ Kabbo Devi and Ors vs Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 153
The Jharkhand High Court has granted Rs 8 Lakh along with interest as compensation to the widow of a man who died in 2017 after accidentally falling from a running train, setting aside a decision by the Railway Claims Tribunal which had rejected her claim.
In doing so the high court ruled that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, despite the absence of a ticket during the inquest report.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand vs Pawan Kumar Singh
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 154
The Jharkhand High Court has commuted the death sentence imposed on a Railway police constable who opened fire on the family of his neighbour-milk supplier, for demanding dues.
While doing so, the Court held that since the Constable had used his service pistol, conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959 cannot stand.
Case Title: Budhu Nag Chatar V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 155
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a confession made by an accused person before the Panchayat qualifies as an extra-judicial confession.
The Court emphasised that an extra-judicial confession can serve as the basis for conviction if the person before whom the confession is made is impartial and not hostile toward the accused.
Case Title: M/s Pama Pharmaceuticals V. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 156
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the principles of natural justice cannot be treated as mere formalities. The Court emphasised that when an adverse decision is being made, the concerned authority must inform the affected party about the proposed action to be taken against them. Failure to follow this procedure would amount to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed, “This Court, on appreciation of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties, is of the view that what is being contended on behalf of petitioner is having substance reason being that the principles of natural justice cannot be said to be mere formality and when an adverse decision is being taken then it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to apprise the party concerned who is to suffer from the adverse decision i.e., regarding the proposed action which is to be taken against that party. If such parameter has not been followed then it will be said that there is non- compliance of principles of natural justice.”
Case Title: Sanjeev Bhagat vs Tej Lal Bhagat and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 157
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified the application of Order XXIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), reaffirming that defendants can only be transposed as plaintiffs in two specific situations: first, when the plaintiff has either withdrawn or abandoned the suit and second, when the defendant has a substantial question of law to be decided against another defendant.
Justice Subhash Chand, in a single bench ruling, reiterated, “Taking into consideration the very provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1A of the CPC, it is evident that defendants may transpose as plaintiff in a suit only in the circumstances; firstly when the plaintiff has withdrawn the suit or abandoned the suit and secondly when the defendant has substantial question of law to be decided against any other defendant.”
