Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: December 2 - December 8, 2024

Nominal Index:UT Of J&K Vs Showkat Ali 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 324X Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 325Ravinder Singh Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 326Union of India Vs M/S Sharma Construction Co. Akhnoor District Jammu 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 327State Of J&K Vs Mohammad Sayidullah Bhat 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 328Peerzada Mohd Yehya Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 329Judgments/Orders "False In One, False In All" Doctrine Doesn't Apply In India: J&K High Court Partially Overturns Acquittal In 24-Yr-Old Assault CaseCase Title: UT Of J&K Vs Showkat AliCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 324The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh reaffirmed that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus—"false in one thing, false in everything" is inapplicable in Indian courts.Instead, the court comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Sanjay Dhar emphasized the necessity of carefully sifting through evidence, separating unreliable portions while relying on credible and corroborated testimony.[Air Force Act] Choice Between Court Martial & Criminal Court Can Only Be Exercised After Probe & Before Magistrate's Cognizance: J&K High CourtCase Title: X Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 325The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that discretion under Section 124 of the Air Force Act, 1950, to choose between a court-martial and a criminal court, can only be exercised after the police investigation is complete and before the Magistrate takes cognizance of the case.Medical Testimony Not Merely Corroborative But Independent Evidence, May Establish Facts Apart From Other Oral Evidence: J&K High CourtCase Title: Ravinder Singh Vs State of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 326Highlighting the critical role of medical evidence in criminal trials, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed, that the evidence of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses as it is also independent testimony because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence.Interest On Awarded Amount Cannot Exceed Rate Of 6% As Provided U/S 30(7) Of J&K Arbitration Act: High CourtCase Title: Union of India Vs M/S Sharma Construction Co. Akhnoor District JammuCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 327The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court bench of Justice M A Chowdhary held that section 30(7) of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 1997 which was amended in 2010 is retrospective in nature. The interest on the awarded amount cannot exceed the rate of 6% per annum as provided in the section.CPC | Second Appeals Must Strictly Comply With S.100 CPC, No Scope For Equitable Grounds Or Disturbing Concurrent Findings: J&K High CourtCase Title: State Of J&K Vs Mohammad Sayidullah BhatCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 328The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that conditions under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) must be strictly fulfilled before a second appeal can be maintained. The Court reiterated that a second appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds, nor can concurrent findings of fact be disturbed by the High Court merely because they are erroneous.Victim's Right To Participate Is Vital, But Hearing May Not Be Essential in Certain Cases Before Granting Relief: J&K High CourtCase Title: Peerzada Mohd Yehya Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 329The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while granting interim bail to an accused has emphasised that although a victim has the right to participate in criminal proceedings at all stages, there are instances where hearing the victim may not be necessary before granting relief.Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that if notifying the victim could defeat the purpose of the relief sought, the court may proceed to grant interim protection in such cases.

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: December 2 - December 8, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags