R.S.A. No. 372 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 372 of 1986 Date of Decision: 26.07.2010 1. Jethu son of Dalip; 2. Gurbax Singh son of Dalip Singh; 3. Lachhman Singh alias Lachha son of Bhag Singh; all residents of Ubhawal, Tehsil and District Sangrur. ... Appellants Versus 1. Karnail Singh; 2. Darshan Singh; 3. Gurdev Singh; sons of Niranjan Singh; 4. Baggo; 5. Jallo daughters of Niranjan Singh; 6. Ms. Rani daughter of Lila Singh minor under the guardianship of Karnail Singh, her uncle, residents of village Ubhawal, Tehsil and District Sangrur. ...Respondents 7. Bachna alias Bachan Singh son of Hira Singh, resident of village Ubhawal, Tehsil and District Sangrur. ...Proforma Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate, for Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. R.S.A. No. 372 of 1986 2 SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed against the judgement and decree dated 11.11.85, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Sangrur, vide which, it accepted the appeal, holding that all the defendants shall be liable to pay the compensation, against the judgement and decree dated 18.08.82, rendered by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Sangrur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs only against Bachna, defendant. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 17.08.79, at about 11.00 AM, Lila Singh son of Sham Kaur, plaintiff No. 1 (now deceased), and, father of Rani, plaintiff No. 2, was murdered by the defendants, as a result whereof, a criminal case, under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered, against them, in Police Station Sangrur. Ultimately, the defendants, were convicted and sentenced, to various terms of imprisonment, for the aforesaid offences. It was stated that, Lila Singh (now deceased), used to cultivate the land of his father, and, also some other land, taken on share-basis. It was further stated that, Lila Singh, was not earning less than Rs. 10,000/- per year. It was further stated that, on the day of occurrence, Lila Singh, was accompanied, by his brothers namely Darshan Singh and Karnail Singh, who witnessed the defendants, causing fatal injuries, on his person, as a result whereof, he died. It was further stated that, Lila Singh, was the sole bread earner of his family, and, on account of his murder, by the defendants, it became very R.S.A. No. 372 of 1986 3 difficult for them to make their both ends meet. Ultimately, a suit for recovery of damages/compensation, was filed. 3. The defendants, put in appearance, and filed written statement wherein, they took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was stated that, the defendants, had been falsely implicated, in the murder of Lila Singh. It was further stated that, the plaintiffs, were having sufficient income, and, were not dependent upon Lila Singh, for their livelihood. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the defendants caused the murder of Lila Singh as alleged in the plaint? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are the mother and daughter of Leela Singh, deceased? OPP (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from the defendants, if so, to what amount? OPP (iv) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, qua Bachna alias Bachan Singh only. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs (now respondents), which was accepted, by the Court of District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.85, holding the remaining defendants (now appellants) also liable pay. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has R.S.A. No. 372 of 1986 4 been filed by the appellants. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The following substantial questions of law, arise in this appeal, for the determination of this Court:- (i) Whether the Courts below, on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, recorded perverse findings, that the appellants, were also liable to pay damages/compensation for the commission of murder of Lila Singh? (ii) Whether the application, moved by the defendants/appellants, for amendment of the written statement, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, was illegally dismissed by the trial Court? 10. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the first Appellate Court, on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the appellants, were also responsible for the murder of Lila Singh and, as such, were liable to pay damages/compensation. He further submitted that the fatal blow, was given, by Bachan Singh, on the person of Lila Singh. He further submitted that, even the Court of Sessions, convicted the appellants, for the offence, punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and, not for the offence, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that, even application for amendment of the written statement, was filed, by the appellants, but, the same, was R.S.A. No. 372 of 1986 5 illegally disallowed, by the trial Court. He further submitted that the judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, being perverse, are liable to be set aside. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellants, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, cannot interfere with the findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that there was complete misreading or misappreciation of evidence or law, on the point. No doubt, the defendants (now appellants) were convicted under Section 323/34 IPC, and Bachna Singh, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Bachna Singh filed an appeal and he was acquitted by this Court. The judgement, rendered by the Criminal Court can only be said to be a piece of evidence. The judgements of the Criminal Courts are not binding on the Civil Courts. The Civil Court, is required, to decide the case, on the basis of the evidence, produced before it. Karnail Singh, PW4, an eye-witness, to the occurrence, in clear-cut terms, stated that Darshan Singh and Lila Singh (now deceased), were hoeing the cotton crop. At about 11.00 AM, on 17.08.79, their he-goat, was grazing, on the boundary of the fields, when Lachman Singh, armed with gandasa, started quarreling with Darshan Singh. On hearing the alarm, raised by Darshan Singh, Jethu Singh and Gurbax Singh, also came there, armed with gandasas, R.S.A. No. 372 of 1986 6 whereas, Bachna Singh @ Bachan Singh, came there, armed with kulhari. Jethu Singh, caught hold of Lila Singh, and, threw him, on the ground, whereas, Bachan Singh, gave a kulhari blow, on the head of Lila Singh. Jethu Singh, sat on the body of Lila Singh, and, he and Lachman Singh, as also Gurbax Singh, caused injuries to Lila Singh with their respective weapons. It was further stated, by this witness, that Gurbax Singh, gave a brick blow, to Karnail Singh, when he was trying, to rescue his brother Lila Singh. On the basis of the unimpeachable statement of Karnail Singh, PW4, an eye-witness, to the occurrence, the first Appellate Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, participated in the occurrence and caused injuries, on the person of the deceased, as a result whereof, he died. The mere fact, that fatal injury, was given by Bachna Singh, did not mean, that the other accused (now appellants), who also participated in the occurrence, in the manner, referred to above, did not share common intention with their co-accused Bachna Singh. The first Appellate Court, was right, in holding, that the civil case, was required, to be decided, on the preponderance of evidence. It is not required to be proved beyond doubt. The first Appellate Court, also took into consideration, the medical evidence i.e. the post mortem report of Lila Singh, which was in consonance with the ocular evidence of Karnail Singh and Sham Kaur, eye-witnesses. The theory of self-defence, set up by the accused (now appellants), was also rightly rejected, by the R.S.A. No. 372 of 1986 7 first Appellate Court, on the basis of the evidence, produced on the record. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the first Appellate Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that since all the accused, including the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries, on the person of Lila Singh, resulting into his death, they all were liable to pay compensation. The findings of the first Appellate Court, in this regard, being based, on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. 12. Coming to the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, moved by the appellants, for the the amendment of written statement, at the fag end, for taking up the plea that they caused injuries on the person of Lila Singh, in their self defence, it may be stated here, that the trial Court recorded valid reasons, for declining the same vide order dated 18.8.1982. The defendants feeling aggrieved, filed a revision- petition, against the order dated 18.8.1982, which was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 29.9.1982, as is evident from the trial Court judgement. The order dated 18.8.1982, thus, attained finality. Thus, the order dated 18.8.1982, duly affirmed by order dated 29.9.1982 is not open to challenge, in this appeal. 13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 14. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct reading and due R.S.A. No. 372 of 1986 8 appreciation of the evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference. The same, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and same stands rejected. 15. The substantial questions of law, depicted above, are answered, against the appellants. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with costs. 26.07.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE