RSA No.2370 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2370 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 8 th APRIL, 2011 Jai Karan & another .... Appellants Versus Geeta & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.7066-C of 2010: Although good and sufficient ground is not made out from the averments made in the application supported by affidavit, yet adopting liberal approach, delay of 280 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal: Defendants No.2 and 3 have filed the instant second appeal. Suit was initially filed by six plaintiffs i.e. Ram Kali plaintiff No.1 (since deceased), Geeta-respondent No.1/plaintiff No.3, Rekha-respondent No.2/plaintiff No.4, Sindra Devi-Plaintiff No.2, Krishan Pal-plaintiff No.5 and Shish Pal-plaintiff No.6. However suit on behalf of plaintiffs No.2, 5 and 6 was dismissed as withdrawn and the suit proceeded on behalf of plaintiffs No.1, 3 and 4 out of whom plaintiff No.1 has also since died. Original plaintiff No.1 was mother of the deceased Jai Chand, plaintiff No.2 is widow, plaintiffs No.3 and 4 daughters and plaintiffs No.5 and 6 are sons of Jai Chand. Compensation was claimed for alleged murder of Jai RSA No.2370 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Chand at the hands of defendants i.e. appellants as defendants No.2 and 3 and proforma respondents No.3 to 6 as defendant Nos.1 and 4 to 6 respectively. Defendants denied the plaint allegations broadly and raised various other pleas. Learned Addition Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2007 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiffs No.3 and 4, has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 12.03.2008 and thereby defendants No.2 and 3 (appellants herein) have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to plaintiffs No.3 and 4 (respondents No.1 and 2 herein). Feeling aggrieved, defendants No.2 and 3 have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. In Criminal case relating to alleged murder of Jai Chand, all the defendants herein were convicted by the trial court. However, in appeal, this Court vide judgment dated 06.02.2006 maintained the conviction of defendants No.2 and 3 (appellants herein) for murder of Jai Chand but set aside the conviction of the remaining defendants for the offence of murder although defendants No.1 and 5 were convicted for causing injuries to some other persons, whereas defendants No.4 and 6 were acquitted. It is thus manifest that conviction of appellants for offence of murder of Jai Chand stands affirmed by this Court. There is nothing on record to depict that the said conviction has been altered or set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently in view of said judgment coupled with evidence of the plaintiffs, it can be safely said RSA No.2370 of 2010 (O&M) -3- that the appellants committed murder of Jai Chand. Therefore, compensation has been rightly granted to respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs No.3 and 4 against the appellants herein. Learned counsel for appellants contended that trial court in criminal case imposed find of Rs.5,000/- on each of the six convicts out of which 50% was ordered to be paid to widow and sons of Jai Chand as compensation. It was contended that in view thereof, no compensation could be awarded to the plaintiffs in the instant suit. The contention is misconceived. Firstly, total compensation of Rs.15,000/- only was awarded in the criminal case and that too was payable to widow and sons of Jai Chand and not to the daughters of Jai Chand. Secondly, conviction of four of the six convicts for offence of murder was set aside by this Court in appeal and, therefore, fine of Rs.5,000/- each on the two appellants herein was maintained out of which compensation of Rs.5,000/- only was payable to widow and sons of Jai Chand. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein did not get any compensation in the criminal case. Thirdly, award of compensation in criminal case does not bar filing of Civil Suit to claim compensation. On the contrary, filing of Civil Suit for claiming compensation is saved by Section 357(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.). It provides that while awarding compensation in Civil Suit relating to the same matter, court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this Section. Thus while Civil Suit is not barred, compensation granted in the criminal case has to be taken into consideration while assessing the quantum of compensation in the Civil Suit. Consequently, award of meagre compensation in the criminal case does not bar the instant suit for compensation, particularly because plaintiffs No.3 and 4, who have been granted compensation RSA No.2370 of 2010 (O&M) -4- by the lower appellate court, were not awarded any compensation in the criminal case. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 being married daughters of Jai Chand were not dependent on him and, therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation. The contention cannot be accepted. Even married daughters get support from their father in all respects pecuniary, social and moral. Besides it, being daughters, they suffered mental agony also on account of murder of their father. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only cannot be said to be excessive by any standard. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 8th April, 2011 'raj'