Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 Date of decision: 20.07.2009 1.Sucha Singh son of Sohan Singh, r/o village Bhindi Aulakh, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. 2.Shaukeen Singh son of Basant Singh, r/o village Dhoop Sari, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. 3.Pal Singh s/o Kashmir Singh, r/o village Noorewal, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. ..... Appellants. Versus 1.Rajwant Kaur wd/o Balkar Singh, 2.Jagmohan Singh, minor aged 11 years. 3.Zorawar Singh minor aged 8 years. 4.Dharminder Singh, minor aged 4 years. 5.Sukhchain Singh, minor aged 2 years, minor sons of Balkar Singh, minors through their mother natural guardian and next friend Smt. Rajwant Kaur widow of Balkar Singh, r/o village Bhindi Aulakh, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:-Mr. Premjit Kalia,Advocate for the appellants. Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 2 Sham Sunder, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2005, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, vide which it decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation with interest, and the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2006, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, was dismissed. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the decision of the appeal, are that on 27.06.1995 Shaukeen Singh, defendant no.2, servant of Sucha Singh, defendant no.1 was playing obscene songs, on the tape recorder, at a loud voice. Balkar Singh (now deceased) asked Shaukeen Singh, defendant no.2, not to play obscene songs as there were ladies in the surrounding area. Defendant no.2 took ill and reported the matter to Sucha Singh, defendant no.1. He falsely alleged that Balkar Singh (now deceased) had given beating Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 3 to him. Sucha Singh, defendant no.1 (now appellant no.1) armed with a Takua, Shaukeen Singh, defendant no.2, (now appellant no.2) armed with a Kirpan, Pal Singh, defendant no.3 (now appellant No.3) armed with a Kirpan and Satto, defendant no.4 armed with a datar, came to the residence of Balkar Singh, (since deceased) and forcibly kidnapped him to their farm-house. They caused serious injuries, on the person of Balkar Singh. It was further stated that on account of the injuries, caused on his person, by the defendants, aforesaid, Balkar Singh, died. It was further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Rajwant Kaur, plaintiff (now respondent no.1), Amrik Singh and Shamsher Singh, who also sustained injuries at the hands of the defendants (now appellants). It was further stated that all the defendants with common intention, committed the murder of Balkar Singh, deceased. FIR No. 122 dated 28.06.1995, under Sections 302, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against them. They were arrested and had been facing the criminal trial. It was further stated that the plaintiffs (now respondents) were dependent upon Balkar Singh (since deceased). It Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 4 was further stated that on account of his death, they became orphans and destitute persons. It was further stated that at the time of commission of murder of Balkar Singh, his age was about 30/35 years and he used to contribute his whole income for the welfare and the maintenance of the plaintiffs (now respondents). Ultimately, the plaintiffs filed a suit for compensation in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, on account of the commission of murder of Balkar Singh, deceased, with interest, at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. The defendants, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing joint written statement, wherein, it was denied that Balkar Singh, (since deceased) was having any income. It was stated that since he was not earning any amount, the question of contributing the same, for the maintenance and welfare of the plaintiffs, did not at all arise. It was further stated that Balkar Singh, died a natural death and was thrown in the fields of Sucha Singh, defendant no.1 (now appellant no.1), just to grab his property. It was stated that the defendants were convicted by the Court of Sessions, but they have already preferred Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 5 an appeal in this Court. It was denied that they committed the murder of Balkar Singh. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were framed, by the trial Court:- “1- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from the defendants on account of murder of Balkar Singh, their predecessors-in-interest, as alleged? If so to what effect ?OPP 2- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 3- Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD 4- Whether the plaintiffs are dependent upon deceased Balkar Singh, as alleged in preliminary objection no.3?OPD 5- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount alongwith interest, if so to what extent? OPP 6- Relief. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. The trial Court, after hearing the Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 6 Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence and record of the case, decreed the suit, vide its judgment and decree dated 08.06.2005, as stated above. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the defendants/appellants, which was dismissed by the Court of District Judge, Amritsar, vide its judgment and decree dated 23.08.2006. 7. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed, by the appellants. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that no worthwhile evidence was produced during the course of trial, by the plaintiffs (now respondents) to prove that actually the murder of Balkar Singh, was committed by the appellants. He further submitted that the Courts below were wrong in placing reliance on the judgment, rendered by the Court of Sessions, convicting the appellants for the commission of murder of Balkar Singh. He further submitted that the plaintiffs were required Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 7 to prove the case regarding the alleged commission of murder of Balkar Singh independently. He further submitted that even the compensation, awarded by the Courts below, was on the higher side. He further submitted that the Courts below, thus, illegally held that the plaintiffs (now respondents) were entitled to the compensation. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellants, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that in Regular Second Appeal, this Court can not interfere into the findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, even if the same are found to be grossly erroneous. This Court can only interfere into the judgments of the Courts below in the Regular Second Appeal, if it comes to the conclusion that substantial question of law, arising out of the appeal, were wrongly decided by the Courts below. Rajwant Kaur, Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 8 widow of Balkar Singh, (PW-1) deposed that on 27.06.1995 at about 9.00 PM, she alongwith her husband Balkar Singh, his brother Amrik Singh and children was present in the house. Sucha Singh armed with a takua, Kirpal Singh, armed with a Kirpan, Shaukeen Singh, armed with a Kirpan and Satnam Kaur alias Satto came there. She further deposed that Shaukeen Singh caught hold Balkar Singh, of his long hair and other defendants started giving him pushes. She further deposed that all of them took Balkar Singh, to their tube-well. It was further deposed to by her that she, Amrik Singh and Shamsher Singh, followed them. It was further deposed to by her that after going to the tube-well, Sucha Singh and other defendants opened attack with their weapons and caused multiple injuries on the person of Balkar Singh, resulting into his death. No doubt other eye witnesses were not examined by the plaintiffs. It is settled principle of law, that the Court is required to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity thereof. The evidence of a single witness, if inspires confidence, can be believed to convict a person for the commission of a crime. The Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 9 statement of Rajwant Kaur, plaintiff no.1, (PW-1), was duly corroborated by the certified copy of the judgment, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which, the appellants were convicted for the offence, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of Balkar Singh. Not only this, post mortem report, Ex.P-3, also corroborated the statement of Rajwant Kaur, (PW-1). The evidence produced by the defendants to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, was duly noticed by the Courts below, and found to be not reliable. The Courts below, thus, were right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs proved that the murder of Balkar Singh was committed by the defendants by causing multiple injuries on his person. 11. Rajwant Kaur, PW-1 deposed that Balkar Singh, deceased, was an agriculturist. He was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. No doubt the defendants examined the witnesses to show that Balkar Singh, was not earning anything. The defendants placed, on record, a jamabandi, wherefrom, it was evident that the plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 10 owned land mentioned therein, which was inherited by them from Balkar Singh, (since deceased). Rajwant Kaur,PW-1, during the course of cross- examination, stated that the land was being cultivated by the elder brother of her husband (Balkar Singh), who was paying Rs.2,000/- after every six months. The Courts below, came to the conclusion that even if, it was assumed that Balkar Singh was an unskilled labourer, his income could not be said to be less than Rs.50/60 per day, and, as such, his monthly income could be said to be Rs.1800/-. The Courts below applied multiplier of 14 keeping in view the age of Balkar Singh, (since deceased) at the time of his death as 30/35 years and, thus, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. In my considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the Courts below, could not be said to be on the higher side, but could be said to be reasonable and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence, brought on record. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or Regular Second Appeal No.3350 of 2007 11 perversity and, thus, warrant no interference. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. No question of law, much less substantial, arises, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed with costs. ( Sham Sunder ) July 20, 2009 Judge dinesh