RSA No.2626 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2626 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.12.2009 Jagjit Singh alias Jag ..Appellant. Vs. Amarjit Kaur and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.D.S.Gill, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal has been filed by defendant No.2 in a suit filed by widow, minor son and minor daughter of Bachittar Singh aged 40 years who has been murdered by Sukhchain Singh and Jagjit Singh (appellant herein), for recovery of Rs.2 lacs towards compensation under Sections 1A and 2 of Fatal Accidents Act. Both Sukhchain Singh and the present appellant were tried in case registered vide FIR No.91 dated 17.11.98 under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act for the murder of Bachittar Singh and were convicted on 16.10.2003. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court with costs for recovery of Rs.2 lacs from defendant No.1 (Sukhchain Singh) and defendant No.2 (appellant) with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. Defendant No.1 accepted the decree and did not challenge it whereas the defendant No.2 filed first appeal insofar as his share of Rs.1 lac is concerned. The said appeal was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court RSA No.2626 of 2009 -2- vide its judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008. Still aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by defendant No.2 in which it has been argued by counsel for the appellant that after registration of the criminal case, the matter was enquired into by Senior Police officer who had found that apart from defendant No.1, all other persons including defendant No.2/appellant were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. It is also submitted that the appellant has been implicated due to old enmity and party fraction in the village. Though there is no denial of the fact that the appellant has been convicted by the Criminal Court along with defendant No.1 who did not challenge the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court by way of an appeal and as such, it has become final against him and the enquiry conducted by S.P.Barnala looses its significance after the appellant has been held guilty in the trial. Neither any meaningful argument has been raised insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned nor any question of law much less substantial has been raised during the course of hearing, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 3.12.2009 Judge Meenu