CM No.5331-C of 2010 ::1: in RSA No.3602 of 2007 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.5331-C of 2010 in RSA No.3602 of 2007 (O & M) Date of decision: 30.06.2010 Surjit Kaur .. Appellant Versus Darshan Singh and others .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.G.S.Toor, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.D.R. Singla, Advocate for respondents. . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.5331-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No.3602 of 2007 (O & M) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant for compensation against the respondents for having caused the death of her son. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit for the reason that before the Police, the respondents had got recovered the kulhari and kirpan allegedly used in the offence. The learned Lower Appellate Court relied upon the fact that the respondents had been acquitted in the criminal trial and also on the fact that there was no independent evidence to link the respondents with the murder. CM No.5331-C of 2010 ::2: in RSA No.3602 of 2007 (O & M) As per the case of the appellant, her son was murdered because he had illicit relations with the wife of one Jarnail Singh. The said Jarnail Singh was neither arrayed as an accused (which may not be laid to the door of the appellant) but he was also not arrayed as defendant in the present case, even though as per the plaint, the said Jarnail Singh would have the primary motive for causing harm to the son of the appellant. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the judgment and decree of first appellant court setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree of trial court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant is illegal and result of mis-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence ? (ii) Whether the judgment passed by criminal court vide which the Respondents-accused have acquitted for want of evidence is binding on the civil court and if not, what is its effect ? (iii) Whether the appellant being widow can be penalized if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt against the Respondents for extraneous reasons ? (iv) Whether the judgment and decree of trial court is well reasoned and outcome of oral as well as documentary evidence ? The questions Nos.(i), (iii) and (iv) are general questions. As regards the factual aspect, learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently, questions Nos. (i), (iii) and (iv) have to be answered against the appellant. CM No.5331-C of 2010 ::3: in RSA No.3602 of 2007 (O & M) As regards question No. (ii) , no doubt, the same has to be answered in favour of the appellant but in view of the fact that the learned Lower Appellate Court has not relied solely upon the judgment of the Criminal Court, even this question if decided in favour of the appellant, would have no effect on the outcome of this appeal. In these circumstances, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) June 30, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet