Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arjan Dev And Others vs Sarabjeet Kaur @ Sarabati And Others on 24 February, 2014
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
-1-
RSA No.4823 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4823 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.02.2014
Arjan Dev and others
....Appellants
Versus
Sarabjeet Kaur @ Sarabati and others
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: - Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the suit for recovery filed by respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed and the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, dismissing the suit, has been set aside.
For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit.
The detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are to the effect that plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery on the ground that on Singh Ravinder 2014.03.28 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- RSA No.4823 of 2013 18.09.1999 at about 6.00 a.m. defendants being member unlawful assembly caused very serious injuries on the person of deceased Veerbhan (father of plaintiffs No.1 to 6 and husband of plaintiff No.7). It is averred that defendants attacked Jammu Ram son of Machhi Ram, his sons Basant Kumar, Chander Parkash, Hans Raj and his wife Krishna Rani in order to dispossess them from the land situated in village Dhanoor, Tehsil Rania District Sirsa which was under the tenancy of Jammu Ram for the last about 32/33 years. The alarm raised by Jammu Ram etc. attracted Veerbhan, Numberdar of the village. When Veerbhan reached there, Arjan Dev, Mohinder and Dharam Chand etc. started causing injuries to Veerbhan with their respective weapons resultantly Veerbhan fell on the land. The defendants also caused injuries to Veerbhan and Jammu Ram when they were lying on the ground and after that all the defendants fled away. Defendant Madan Lal used licensed gun of defendant Gandi Ram. Veerbhan and Jammu Ram were got admitted in civil hospital, Sirsa where at 11.55 p.m. Veerbhan succumbed to injuries and his post-mortem was conducted on 19.09.1999 at 11.00 a.m. in civil hospital, Sirsa. Veerbhan was about 33 years of age. All the defendants were challaned under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/307/302 IPC. The plaintiffs filed suit claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from defendants for depriving them of love and affection of deceased Veerbhan besides the economic loss.
Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed joint written statement raising preliminary objections of maintainability of the suit, Singh Ravinder 2014.03.28 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- RSA No.4823 of 2013 cause of action and mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties because the parents of Veerbhan have not been impleaded as plaintiffs or performa defendant while they are still alive, plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit etc. On merits it has been submitted that plaintiffs No.1 to 6 are not children of plaintiff No.7 or Veerbhan and even the age of plaintiffs No.1 to 6 has been wrongly described in the plaint. It has been further averred that neither Veerbhan deceased was cultivating land measuring 22 kanals in village Jhorarnali nor he was the owner thereof. It was denied that income of the deceased was Rs.1,00,000/-. It was further averred that Veerbhan was not the Namberdar of the village. It was denied that defendants are hot-headed persons and on 18.09.1999 they constituted an unlawful assembly and caused serious injuries to Veerbhan. It was also denied that said injuries were caused to Veerbhan when he intervened the attack laid by defendants upon Jammu Ram and his sons etc. All other averments have been denied in the plaint and prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made.
Court of first instance, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: -
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of recovery of damages of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of murder of Veerbhan son of Sh. Sohan Lal, father of plaintiffs No.1 to 6 and husband of plaintiff No.7 by defendants, as alleged? OPP
2. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Singh Ravinder 2014.03.28 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- RSA No.4823 of 2013
3. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly time barred? OPD
4. Relief."
The Court of first instance, after appreciating evidence on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Against the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance, appeal preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs has been accepted by lower appellate Court and plaintiffs have been held entitled to recover the amount of Rs.3,70,000/- from the defendants along with interest @ 6% per annum (simple interest) from the date of suit till realization.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellants referred to substantial questions of law formulated in the grounds of appeal, which read as under: -
"1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court did not meet reasoning given by the trial Court while reversing the judgment?
2. Whether the appellants No.4 to 6 who were acquitted by the trial Court were also liable to pay compensation on account of death of deceased?
3. Whether the amount granted to the plaintiffs as compensation is reasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case and also on the facts that the suit was filed as pauper?
4. Whether the income of the deceased was assessed according to law or on the excessive side?
5. Whether the lower appellate Court has relied upon Singh Ravinder 2014.03.28 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -5- RSA No.4823 of 2013 admissible evidence and ignored the evidence of the appellants-defendants?
6. Whether the involvement of the appellants in the death of deceased is fully proved or they can be held liable and the intention of murder was established?"
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that defendants had no intention to murder Veerbhan, it was just by chance that deceased Veerbhan received injuries and died. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the lower appellate Court has wrongly considered the judgment of conviction against the defendants for awarding compensation. The appeal against conviction is pending, therefore, complicity of the appellants is yet not final.
I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants.
From the perusal of record, it is clear that suit of the plaintiffs has rightly been decreed by lower appellate Court. From the evidence of the witnesses it is clear that appellants being members of the unlawful assembly caused injuries to Veerbhan, who intervened when the appellants were attacking Jammu Ram, his wife and sons. Veerbhan was admitted to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, where he succumbed to his injuries. All the appellants were challaned under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Lower appellate Court has further recorded a finding that Singh Ravinder 2014.03.28 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -6- RSA No.4823 of 2013 Veerbhan died at the hands of the appellants. Lower appellate Court has also recorded a finding that plaintiffs were paupers. They were fully dependent upon deceased Veerbhan. The lower appellate Court has not based its findings solely on the judgment of conviction of the appellants. The lower appellate Court has discussed in detail the evidence brought on record in the suit besides evaluating the evidentiary value of judgment of conviction. FIR and judgment of conviction have been fully proved on record by the plaintiffs. These documents are admissible in evidence under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Pendency of appeal against conviction has no bearing on the decision of the matter in hand. Criterion of evaluation of evidence in criminal proceedings and proceedings for compensation on account of death is different and both the proceedings are to be decided independent of each other.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the findings recorded by lower appellate Court are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-reading or mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record.
No question of law, muchless substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge February 24, 2014 R.S. Singh Ravinder 2014.03.28 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh