High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Sant Singh & Another. v. Daljit Kaur & Ors. - RSA-823-2006  RD-P&H 1036 (21 February 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 823 of 2006.
Date of Decision: 27.2.2006
Sant Singh & Another. ....Appellants.
Daljit Kaur and others. ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
Present: Shri Arun Bansal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- was awarded as damages on account of death of Jugraj Singh, at the hands of the appellants.
The plaintiffs have claimed compensation on the ground that on 6.7.1994 Sant Singh defendant no.1 armed with a fatti (piece of wood) Ajmer Singh defendant no.2 armed with balla (log of wood), pulled Jugraj towards the tubewell. Defendant no. 2 gave a balla blow on the lips of Jugraj Singh due to which Jugraj Singh fell down and then defendant no.1 gave two Fatti blows on the forehead of Jugraj Singh, which lead to death of Jugraj Singh. The said incident was witnessed by one Jagtar Singh, who appeared as a witness in the criminal prosecution against the defendant but before he could be examined in the Civil Court, he died on 25.12.1995.
His statement Exhibit PA was considered by the Civil Court along with other evidence to hold that the defendants are responsible for the unfortunate death of Jugraj Singh. Both the Courts have found that the RSA No. 823 of 2006. (2)
defendants have not denied the incident but raised the plea of self defence, which they have failed to prove. It has been found that though the incident occurred on 6.7.1994 but the defendants got their medical examination conducted after two weeks on 20.7.1994. It has also been found that no independent evidence has been led by the defendants to prove that the deceased was having fire arms at the time of occurrence and he caused injuries to Sant Singh. It has been found by the learned first Appellate Court that if the defendants could send telegram on 6.7.1994 then why the medico legal examination of Sant Singh was not conducted just after the incident. It has also been found that there is no explanation as to why the pistol allegedly held by Jugraj Singh has not been recovered. All these facts led the Courts below to conclude that the plea of self defence, as set out by them, is not proved.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the entire case revolves around the statement of Jagtar Singh, Exhibit PA, recorded in criminal case. Statement of Jagtar Singh has not been believed in criminal proceedings and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Civil Court on the basis of the said statement, is not sustainable in law.
However, I am unable to agree with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is well settled that the judgment of the Criminal Court is relevant only to show that there was a trial resulting into conviction and sentence for the offence charged or vice versa. Even if the witness has been disbelieved, the said statement, would not be relevant for the determination of the lis between the parties before the Civil Court. The plea of self defence raised by the defendants has been considered and remained unsubstantiated. The finding of the Civil Court is based upon the RSA No. 823 of 2006. (3)
proper appreciation of evidence. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Therefore, the findings recorded, could not be disputed by re-appreciation of evidence alone in second appeal.
Faced with such a situation, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the damages awarded are highly excessive. The plaintiff has not proved the income of Rs.36,000/- p.a. as the basis for determining the compensation. As a matter of fact, it has been found that the deceased was owner of about 20 killas of land as well as he was cultivating the land of his father. The compensation has been assessed keeping in view the income as 24,000/- p.a. i.e. Rs.2000/- per month. The said basis for determining the compensation by applying the multiplier of 16 even if the age of deceased was 50 years, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Such compensation is in fact, in terms of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Lachman Singh and others Vs. Gurmit Kaur and others 1979 PLR page 1.
No other point is urged.
Since, no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.
27.2.2006 (Hemant Gupta)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.