H.P. Pyarejan vs Dasappa(Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors on 6 February, 2006
In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533,
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs.
Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and
others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the
High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived
at by the first Appellate Court, even if, the same are grossly erroneous, as
the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted
second appeal to become a "third trial on facts" or "one more dice in the
gamble." It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in
interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the
hearing of substantial questions of law. The first Appellate Court, in para
RSA No. 4342 of 2002 5
No. 7 of its judgement, on the basis of Veterinary Jurisprudence Enlarged
and Thoroughly Revised Third Edition by S.N. Sharma, M.V.Sc., Assistant
Professor, Department of Medicine, College of Veterinary & Animal
Science, Bikaner, published by Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi,
Bombay, Calcutta, came to the conclusion, that in cases of death due to
electrocution, rigor mortis develops and passes quickly; and there is early
putrefaction and singeing or burning marks on the feet or muzzle besides
other changes. The first Appellate Court, came to the correct conclusion,
that the changes referred to above, as per the aforesaid treatise, had not been
mentioned in the report P2 of the Veterinary Surgeon, though the death of
the buffalo took place at about 11.30 AM, on 25.04.1998, whereas the post-
mortem, was conducted, on the same day, at 5.45 PM. The first Appellate
Court, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that since these changes,
did not appear in necropsy P2, it created doubt, regarding the cause of
death, particularly when there was reliable evidence led by the
defendant/respondent, that the animal did not die, on account of
electrocution, but due to some disease. Leelu Ram, plaintiff, when appeared
as PW1, in clear-cut terms, stated that he was not present, at the time, his
buffalo died. He further stated that his wife, was present, at that time. The
wife of Leelu Ram, was not examined, as a witness. Since Leelu Ram, was
not present, at the time of the death of the buffalo, he could not say, as to
what was the cause of death. The wife of Leelu Ram, who could be said to
be the best witness present, at the time of the death of buffalo, was withheld
by him. The first Appellate Court, also rightly placed reliance on exhibit
D1, duly signed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kalirawan, Sher Singh,
Ex-Sarpanch, Dharambir Singh, Panch, Hamir Singh, Panch, and many
other persons, wherein it was mentioned, that Leelu Ram, admitted before
RSA No. 4342 of 2002 6
the Panchayat, that his buffalo died, on account of ailment, and he dragged
the dead buffalo, upto the stray wire, to claim compensation, from the
defendant/respondent. No doubt, this document, was not signed by Leelu
Ram, plaintiff/appellant. However, it was mentioned, in clear-cut terms, in
this document, that Leelu Ram appeared, before the Panchayat, and
admitted the aforesaid facts. These witnesses were not at all inimical to
Leelu Ram, nor such a fact, was proved on the record. The judgement and
decree of the first Appellate Court, being based, on the correct appreciation
of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer, from any illegality or
perversity. The same are liable to be upheld. Substantial question of law,
depicted above, is, thus, answered against the appellant.