R.S.A.No. 2746 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2746 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 27.5.2011 Lakhbir Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Jasbir Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Loveleen Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for respondent. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of ` 2,00,000/- as damages on account of injuries suffered by him at the hands of defendants on 4.8.1998. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that on 4.8.1998 at about 3.30 p.m., plaintiff along with his elder brother Gurpreet Singh were spreading fertilizer in their fields. Defendant Lakhbir Singh armed with kirpan, Satnam Singh armed with datar, Sukhbir Singh R.S.A.No. 2746 of 2009(O&M) 2 armed with Chhavi and Rupinder Singh and Prabhjit Singh armed with dangs came there. Lakhbir Singh raised a lalkara that the plaintiff and his brother be taught a lesson for claiming passage from them. Thereafter, Lakhbir Singh inflicted a kirpan blow on the middle finger of the left hand of Gurpreet Singh. The plaintiff tried to rescue his brother and then Lakhbir Singh gave a kirpan blow on the person of the plaintiff and as a result of this, the thumb of right hand of the plaintiff got chopped off. Satnam Singh gave a datar blow on the left hand of the plaintiff and as a result of this, the thumb of the left hand of the plaintiff had to be removed by the doctor to save his life. Satnam Singh gave a datar blow on the person of Gurpreet Singh from its reverse side and Sukhbir Singh gave a chhavi blow on the right shoulder of Gurpreet Singh. Plaintiff and his brother raised alarm and they were rescued by Chuhar Singh. FIR No.137 dated 4.8.1998 was registered against the defendants. The plaintiff remained admitted in the hospital from 4.8.1998 to 20.8.1998 and an operation was conducted on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has suffered 45% permanent disability and had spent ` 20,000/- on his treatment. The plaintiff had earlier served with Punjab Police and his services were dispensed with on technical grounds. The defendants, in their written statement, averred that they had received threats from the plaintiff and his party and had informed the police in this regard. No action had been taken on their complaint. In fact, on 4.8.1998, at about 4.30/ 5.00 p.m., defendant No.1 was returning back from his duty and when he reached near the Panchayat Ghar of the village, Chuhar Singh raised a lalkara that defendant No.1 be not let alive. On hearing the lalkara, plaintiff, R.S.A.No. 2746 of 2009(O&M) 3 armed with datar and Gurpreet Singh, Harpreet Singh and Amritpal Singh, armed with dangs, reached the spot. Chuhar Singh was also armed with a dang. Defendant No.1, in order to save his life, tried to flee away but Gurpreet Singh gave a dang blow on the front portion of the bicycle of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 left his bicycle and ran towards his haveli. Plaintiff along with Gurpreet Singh, Chuhar Singh, Harpreet Singh and Amritpal Singh trespassed into the haveli of defendant No.1. Harpreet Singh and Amritpal Singh gave a dang blow each on the head of defendant No.1. The plaintiff tried to give a datar blow on the head of defendant No.1 but he raised his hands to guard the blow. As a result, defendant No.1 suffered an injury on his right forearm. On hearing the alarm raised by defendant No.1, Satnam Singh and Sukhbirv Singh came to the spot. Chuhar Singh and Gurpreet Singh gave dang blows on the person of Satnam Singh and Sukhbir Singh. The plaintiff again gave a datar blow on the person of defendant No.1. Sukhbir Singh, defendant No.2, who was armed with toki, in order to defend defendant No.1, gave a blow on the person of the plaintiff. The said blow hit on the hand of the plaintiff. The injury inflicted on the person of the plaintiff was, thus, a result of self defence. A false case had been got registered against the defendants by the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% per annum as alleged ? OPP R.S.A.No. 2746 of 2009(O&M) 4 3. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 12.5.2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 20.4.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the first Appellate Court had erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had failed to prove his case. In fact, the plaintiff had suffered injury in the alleged occurrence while the appellants had acted in their self defence. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the plaintiff had been successful in proving his case. The trial Court had convicted the appellants in the criminal case and the said decision had been upheld up to this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of damages on account of injuries suffered by him at the hands of the defendants. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-4 and examined his brother Gurpreet Singh as PW-3. Both the said witnesses deposed qua the manner of occurrence. In order to establish the extent and nature of his injuries, plaintiff examined PW-1 Dr.Gopal Raj , PW-2 Dr.S.K.Hans, and PW-5 Dr. R.S.A.No. 2746 of 2009(O&M) 5 Hardeep Singh Bajwa. FIR No.131 dated 4.8.1998 was registered against the appellants under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the said case by the trial court vide judgment/ order dated 17.11.2005. The said decision of the trial Court was upheld by the Appellate Court in appeal as well as by this Court in revision. In these circumstances, the theory put forth by the appellants qua self defence is liable to be rejected. Learned first Appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, has given a finding of fact that the injuries had been inflicted by the appellants on the person of the respondent-plaintiff and the said injuries were not inflicted by the appellants on the person of the plaintiff in self defence. The said finding of fact calls for no interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 27, 2011 anita