In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.509 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:22.2.2008 Mukhtiar Kaur and others .....Appellants v. Manjit Kaur .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the appellants. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) Manjit Kaur, plaintiff-respondent filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for recovery of Rs.5 Lacs on account of the murder of her son Balkar Singh by the defendants-appellants. It was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that her son Balkar Singh (deceased) was the only bread-earner for the plaintiff and she was dependent on him. Balkar Singh (deceased) was a milk vendor and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was murdered by the defendants as per the statement of Bharpur Singh son of Gurdev Singh. In this regard case FIR No.50 dated 16.6.1996 was registered against the defendants for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. The plaintiff claimed that she had suffered pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs. The defendants-appellants denied the assertion of the plaintiff that Balkar Singh (deceased) was the only bread-earner. In fact, her husband was alive and he is a healthy person. Moreover, the plaintiff has two other sons. The commission of murder of Balkar Singh by the R.S.A. No.509 of 2008 [2] defendants was also denied. It was pleaded that a false case had been planted against the defendants due to party faction. Kishan Singh (defendant No.1) had a small flour mill (Atta Chakki) and the other defendants were the poor labourers. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record vide its judgment dated 28.4.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It was observed that the plaintiff had deposed that she had three sons and out of them Balkar Singh had died. Besides, her husband was alive. Moreover, her father-in-law had died and after his death 10 Bighas of land came to their shares and the land is now in the name of her sons including Balkar Singh. The plaintiff was residing with her other two sons. It was also held that the plaintiff had not proved on record regarding the property of the defendants. Pal Singh and Satnam Singh (defendants No.2 and 3) are the sons of Kishan Singh (defendant No.1). Kishan Singh had died and his LRs Mukhtiar Kaur (wife), Darshan Singh (son), Pal Singh and Satnam Singh (defendants No.2 and 3) and Bant Kaur (daughter) were brought on record. So far as the case that was registered against the defendants Kishan Singh, Pal Singh and Satnam Singh is concerned, it was admitted fact that the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala vide his judgment and order dated 28.4.1999 convicted Kishan Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Pal Singh under Section 324 IPC. However, Satnam Singh was acquitted. The defendants had taken the plea that Balwinder Singh son of Sher Singh i.e. son of the plaintiff Manjit Kaur has caused the murder of Kishan Singh (defendant No.1) when he had come to the village on leave from the jail. The judgment dated 21.1.2003 was placed on record in which R.S.A. No.509 of 2008 [3] Balwinder Singh (son of the plaintiff) and one Jarnail Singh had been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 452, 324 and 34 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Patiala. The learned trial Court observed that Kishan Singh (defendant No.1) had admittedly died during the pendency of the suit and Pal Singh as well as Satnam Singh were acquitted. Besides, it was observed that no property of Kishan Singh is alleged to have been inherited by his legal heirs who have been brought on the file of the plaintiff. Moreover, Kishan Singh has also been murdered by the son of the plaintiff for which they have been convicted. Therefore, it was held that the legal heirs of Kishan Singh were not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiff and the other defendants Pal Singh and Satnam Singh were also not liable to pay any compensation as they have already been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned lower appellate Court, however, held that the total earning of Balkar Singh was Rs.5,000/- per month when on 15.6.1996 he was murdered by the defendants. It was also observed that the defendants had huge property and all the defendants were running a flour mill (Atta Chakki), saw mill and cotton ginning at Village Mandaur, Tehsil Nabha and had bank balance. It was observed that Bharpur Singh (PW-2), who is the eye witness of the occurrence, had deposed regarding the occurrence. Besides, Balwinder Singh (PW-3) deposed regarding the income of the deceased Balkar Singh to the effect that he was earning Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month by doing agriculture work and also by selling milk. He also deposed regarding the occurrence being the eye witness. Dr. Harish Tuli (PW-4) deposed regarding the post-mortem R.S.A. No.509 of 2008 [4] conducted on Balkar Singh and Bhupinder Singh Sidhu, Draftsman (PW-5) deposed regarding the site plan. In defence, the defendants examined Sukhwinder Singh (DW-1) who primarily deposed that he knew family members of the plaintiff and the defendants. Besides, husband of Manjit Kaur was alive and she has three sons and they all reside in one house. It was also noticed that Manjit Kaur’s husband owns about 50 Bighas of land. It was held that it is an admitted case that Kishan Singh was convicted in the murder case and Pal Singh and Satnam Singh were acquitted. The plaintiff has produced eye witnesses and the doctor to prove the post-mortem report. From the said statements, according to the learned lower appellate Court it was clear that Kishan Singh had murdered Balkar Singh son of the plaintiff and this fact has been proved by the plaintiff by producing cogent evidence. As regards the compensation, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2,100/- per month and it was observed that he may be contributing ½ of the amount to his mother and in this manner the dependency was worked out to Rs.12,600/- per annum and multiplier of 12 was applied and a sum of Rs.1,51,200/- was awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has contended that the defendants have not succeeded to any property of the deceased Kishan Singh who was the only accused who had been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala vide his judgment and order dated 28.4.1999. Therefore, it is contended that the appellants are not liable for paying any compensation to the plaintiff. Even otherwise, it is contended that the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and R.S.A. No.509 of 2008 [5] the learned lower appellate Court has erred in reversing the findings of the trial Court. It is also contended that the conclusion reached at by the learned lower appellate Court as regards the income of the deceased is based on mere conjectures and surmises and there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.2,100/- per month. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and also perused the order passed by the Courts below. It may be noticed that the learned lower appellate Court has, as a matter of fact, held that Kishan Singh (defendant No.1) had murdered Balkar Singh, the son of the plaintiff and this fact had been proved by the plaintiff by producing cogent evidence. Therefore, the said finding is a pure finding of fact which calls for no interference in regular second appeal. The evidence led by the plaintiff regarding income of the deceased is to the effect that he was earning Rs.5,000/- - Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned lower appellate Court has though held that there was cogent evidence on record regarding the income of the deceased but has taken his income to be Rs.2,100/- per month. Balkar Singh-deceased was aged 20 years at the time of his death and, therefore, his income being assessed at Rs.2,100/- per month cannot be said to be unreasonable so as to dislodge the finding of fact recorded by the learned lower appellate Court. The compensation that has been awarded for the murder of Balkar Singh is Rs.1,51,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its realization. The said compensation cannot be said to be unduly high and warrant interference in the conclusion reached at by the learned lower appellate Court in regular second appeal. The LRs of R.S.A. No.509 of 2008 [6] deceased Kishan Singh are liable to pay the compensation for the death that has been caused of Balkar Singh. The questions of law that have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are not such questions which can be said substantial questions of law requiring adjudication by this Court. It is primarily contended that the liability for the murder of Balkar Singh cannot be fastened on the LRs of Kishan Singh (deceased) who has been held liable for the murder. In this respect, it may be noticed that the amount is recoverable from the estate of the deceased and it has come on record that the defendants had huge property and they were running a flour mill (Atta Chakki), saw mill and cotton ginning at Village Mandaur, Tehsil Nabha besides they have bank balance. The other question of law that is raised is whether the compensation can be granted even when the claimant himself had murdered the accused Kishan Singh. In other words, it is contended that Balwinder Singh son of the plaintiff Manjit Kaur had murdered Kishan Singh (defendant No.1) and, therefore, compensation is not liable to be paid. In this regard, it may be noticed that the LRs of Kishan Singh may have their right qua the murder of Kishan Singh which they can enforce in accordance with law. The same, however, is not in controversy in the present appeal which would require adjudication. In the circumstances, there are no questions of law involved in the case. Consequently there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. February 22, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*