J & K HC defends compensation for the disabled man due to police gasoline fired by the police, says that criminal justice would look ‘hole’ if the victim did not compensate

It was observed that the Court of First Instance had been based on the communication of SSP, Srinagar, who reported that the minor plaintiff received injuries when a tear gas fired by the police first hit a shutter of a store and then recovered and hit The head of the plaintiff that resulted in what resulted in. 75% disability.

A bank of Judge Vinod Chatterji Koul He observed that “Criminal justice would be hollow if justice is not made to the victim of crime. The issue of victimology is gaining ground. A crime victim cannot be a forgotten man in the criminal justice system. It is he, who has suffered more. His family is ruined, particularly in the event that his disability throughout his life. The shocking aspect of the matter is that the petitioner faces such a situation, which cannot be reduced in writing. “

The Court said that the calculations made by the Court of First Instance for the granting of compensation in favor of the defendant do not request any interference.

The court trusted V. Raja Kumari v. P. SUBBARAMA NAIDU Y OTHER, (2004) in which it was argued that when a registered mail is sent and returned with a rejected or not available postal backup in the house or the house closed or the closed store or the recipient that is not at the station, due service must be presumed

BACKGROUND

The appeal was filed by the state of J & K against an ex -party decree approved by the second additional district judge, Srinagar, who granted compensation to the victim who was at the time of the incident. It was stated that the compensation trusts the report of the then SSP that reports that this injury was the result that the tear gas hit the minor victim. The Court of First Instance granted ₹ 10.55 Lakhs with 6% interest as compensation.

The petitioner said that said decree was approved without notified to listen to the other side and was simply approved by trusting the report of then SSP. He also argued that the amount so granted by the Court of First Instance was exorbitant and very inflated.

However, the court rejected these disputes and argued that the petitioner was duly delivered with the notice and did not seem to dispute that case. The Court explained section 27 of the Law of General Clauses and reiterated that once a notice is sent to the right address, it is said that it has been duly delivered unless said part produces other evidence.

The court also considered that it was not an adequate case that could justify the interference with respect to the approved decree, as well as with the calculation made to reach an amount of compensation that the petitioner will pay. Okay, the appeal was dismissed.

APPEARANCE:

Mohsin Qadri, Mr.aag for recurring

P. Imroz, lawyer for respondents.

Case-Title: state of J & K and anr. Vs Yawar Ahmad Bhat (minor)