R.S.A. No.3445 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.3445 of 2007 Date of Decision:01.12.2008 Jaswant Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. Sukhwinder Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Harnek Singh, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment /decree dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur whereby he decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs.70,000/- with proportionate costs by partly accepting the appeal preferred against the judgment/ decree dated 18.12.2001 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, whereby she dismissed the suit with costs. The facts are these: The plaintiff being a work-charge employee in Punjab State Electricity Board, Batala, North Division, (for brevity, `the Board') was drawing Rs.1060/- per month as his salary. On 10.7.1988 at about 7:00 a.m., he along with his father had gone to the fields. When they neared the tubewell, meanwhile, Tehal Singh armed with Sota, Jaswant Singh, Joginder Singh, Dharamjit Singh armed with Kirpan each R.S.A. No.3445 of 2007 -2- and Bachittar Singh armed with gandasi came there with common intention. Tehal Singh exhorted his co-accused, whereupon Dharamjit Singh dealt a kirpan blow hitting the plaintiff on his left leg. Joginder Singh delivered kirpan blow, which landed on plaintiff's right thumb, which got chopped off. When plaintiff's father Mohan Singh stepped forward to rescue his son, Dharamjit Singh gave a kirpan blow, which rested on his left elbow. Joginder Singh delivered a kirpan blow on his left upper arm. Bachittar Singh dealt gandasi blow on his left foot. Jaswant Singh gave kirpan blows continuously which hit on the left thigh, left leg and fingers of right hand. Tehal Singh gave Sota blows on his (plaintiff) and his father's back. Jaswant Singh gave kirpan blow on the right knee and right side of the abdomen of Mohan Singh. On being raised alarm of “Mar Ditta, Mar Ditta”, the defendants decamped with their respective weapons. Initially, DDR No.90 under Sections 326/ 324/ 323/ 148 read with Section 149 of IPC was entered. Later on, the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC was added. The plaintiff aged about 21 years was having a good health at the time of occurrence. The life expectancy in his family is 90 years. He is not addicted to vices. Due to this incident, he has become disabled to earn his livelihood. On these allegations, the suit was filed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lacs for loss of service etc. In their joint written statement, the defendants inter-alia pleaded that Tehal Singh in order to irrigate his land purchased water of the tubewell of Piara Singh. He had put a pipe of 8 feet in length under the water channel of Mohan Singh, father of the plaintiff. Mohan Singh and the plaintiff started digging the water course. When they objected to it, the scuffle ensued. The body of Dharamjit Singh as well as the plaintiff was R.S.A. No.3445 of 2007 -3- covered with mud. Mohan Singh gave a kirpan blow on the right leg of Dharamjit Singh. The plaintiff had received injury from his own father. Lastly, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether on 10.7.88, the defendant caused injuries on the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of Rs.3,00,000/- as damages and compensation on account of injuries caused to the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 3-A. Whether Dharamjit Singh defendant No.4 died on 15.4.89 and suit against him stands abated? OPR 4. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit as noticed earlier. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the plaintiff went up in appeal which was partly accepted by the First Appellate Court in the terms as noticed earlier. Feeling dissatisfied therewith, the defendants have preferred this appeal. None has come forward to argue on behalf of the respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants besides perusing the findings returned by the First Appellate Court with due care and circumspection. Mr. Harnek Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants urged with great eloquence that the First Appellate Court has R.S.A. No.3445 of 2007 -4- reversed the findings returned by the learned trial Court on the simple ground that Raghbir Singh, DW1 deposed nothing regarding the occurrence and he had simply deposed that the appellants/ defendants were not present in the Village at the time of the occurrence. He further puts that the fight took place between the parties and they both had caused injuries to each other and that being so, one party cannot claim the damages against the other. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with these submissions. The occurrence has been admitted by the appellants. There is no gainsaying the fact that the defendants were convicted by Criminal Court vide judgment, copy of which is Ex.P.Y. The appeal preferred there against has also been dismissed vide Ex.P.Z. It is an accredited rule of law that the judgment delivered by the Criminal Court is not binding on the Civil Court whereas the converse is true. The evidence of Raghbir Singh DW1 pales into insignificance in the face of admission of occurrence by both the parties. As regards, Joginder Singh, when he appeared as DW2, he stated nothing about the occurrence. In cases of such compensation, the evidence adduced before the Civil Court has to be appreciated independently of the findings of the Criminal Court. Here in this case, the compensation has been awarded by the First Appellate Court on the basis of evidence produced before the trial Court. The defendants did not lead evidence in proof of the fact that the plaintiff was not employed in the Board at the relevant time or that he was not getting Rs.1060/- per month as his salary or that his right thumb was not chopped off during the occurrence. On delving into the findings returned by the First Appellate Court, it emerges out that the same cannot be faulted with in any manner. More to the point, no R.S.A. No.3445 of 2007 -5- substantial question of law arises for determination herein. Resultantly, this appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed. December 01, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? No