Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh vs Bhago on 19 September, 1986
Equivalent citations: I(1987)ACC65
JUDGMENT Gokal Chand Mital, J.
1. Tarsem Singh is alleged to have murdered Nasib Singh on 4-12-1970. His widow Smt. Bhago filed a suit was recovery of Rs. 36,000/-as damages for the murder of her husband. The suit way contested and the plea that he had murdered her husband was denied by the defendant. However, it was admitted by him that he was convicted by the Criminal Court for the murder of her husband. On the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether Nasib Singh deceased died because of the injuries inflicted on his person by Tarsem Singh respondent on 4-12-70 in village Raheela? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages from the respondent for his wrongful act due to which Nasib Singh deceased died? If so to what amount? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPP
4. Relief.
2. On the evidence led in the case, the trial Court by Judgment and decree dated 21st April, 1977, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 15,000/-with costs, after recording a finding on issue No. 1 that Nasib Singh died as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defendant, and on issue No. 2 that pecuniary loss to the plaintiff was Rs. 125/- per month and a multiplier of 10 was applied. This is defendant's appeal.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant an on perusal of the record, I am of the view that there is not the least scope for interference in this appeal.
4. Ram Sarup PW 3 and Bishna PW 4 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and on a reading of their statements, I find that they inspire confidence. From the cross-examination it could not be shown that the witnesses were not reliable or were not speaking the truth. It is proved from their statements alongwith the post-mortem report Exhibit PW 1/1 that the defendant gave a Barchha blow in the abdomen of the deceased and as a result of that injury he died. As against the aforesaid evidence there is bare denial by the defendant about the occurrence. I prefer to rely on the statements of PW 3 and PW 4 as compared to the defendant's statement.
5. The defendant was convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, for the murder of the husband of the plaintiff and was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. On his appeal to this Court, the conviction and sentence for imprisonment was maintained but the fine was remitted. The judgments of the Criminal Courts are not relevant for the purposes of decision of compensation in the civil suit. Therefore, I have decided this case solely on the basis of evidence led in the suit.
6. Adverting to the quantum of compensation, I am of the view that it is on the low side. Had there been cross-appeal or cross-objections, those would have been allowed because the plaintiff is alive till this date, i.e. has remained alive at least for a period of 16 years from the date of occurrence which took place on 4-12-1970. Even if the meagre dependency of Rs. 125/- per month is upheld on multiplier or 16, the plaintiff would have been entitled to damages of Rs. 24,000/-. Hence the decree for Rs. 15,000/- granted by the Court below does not call for interference.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Since the defendant was allowed to appeal as an indigent person, he is directed to pay the court fee which would have been paid by him if he had not been permitted to appeal as an indigent person.