Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 754 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. Manjit Kaur

2000-07-18

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Regular First Appeal filed by Shri Ajit Singh son of Kashmir Singh and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1978, passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Zira, who, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with costs against Ajit Singh the present appellant and his co-defendant Shri Baj Singh. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Plaintiffs, Manjit Kaur, Sukhraj Singh, Balwinder Singh, Rani and Smt. Tej Kaur are the legal representatives of Shri Jaswant Singh deceased. Smt. Jagir Kaur, Darshan Singh, Simro, Manjit and Smt. Ass Kaur, are the legal representatives of Gurnam Singh deceased and they filed a money suit jointly against the present appellant Ajit Singh and his co-defendant Baj Singh and claimed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- by way of damages on account of the murder of Jaswant Singh and Gurnam Singh. 3. Gurnam Singh was murdered when he was aged about 27 years while Shri Jaswant Singh was aged 30 years at the time of his murder. According to the plaintiffs both these persons, Jaswant Singh and Gurnam Singh, were murdered by Baj Singh and present appellant Ajit Singh on 1.8.1972 in village Rataul Bet. Ajit Singh was found guilty and was sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepure, vide his judgment dated 11.7.1973. The conviction and the sentence of the defendant has also been upheld by the Honble High Court vide judgment dated 28.11.1973. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.8.1972 at about 7.00 P.M., Gurdip Singh son of Vir Singh, resident of Rataul Bet, had gone to village Chakki (Flour Mill) when he found that the Chakki was closed so he started moving towards the village phirni, which was towards the North of the flour mill, in order to have a look at his paddy crop. On his way back to his house, he met Gurnam Singh and Jaswant Singh deceased, who were coming from the opposite direction. The deceased were followed by Sarvinder Singh son of Sajjan Singh and Bhag Singh son of Boota Singh at a distance of 4/5 karams. On his way back to his house, he met Gurnam Singh and Jaswant Singh deceased, who were coming from the opposite direction. The deceased were followed by Sarvinder Singh son of Sajjan Singh and Bhag Singh son of Boota Singh at a distance of 4/5 karams. Gurnam Singh and Jaswant Singh deceased had hardly covered a distance of few karams after meeting Gurdip Singh and when they were adjacent to the flour mill of Kahan Chand, the present appellant and his companion Baj Singh armed with guns suddenly emerged from the nearby gali. They approached deceased Jaswant Singh and Gurnam Singh. Ajit Singh, present appellant, who, was armed with a single barre. 12 bore gun, raised a lalkara that Gurnam Singh and Jaswant Singh should not be allowed to escape and he simultaneously fired a shot from his gun, which hit Jaswant Singh on his forehead, face and chest. Immediately, thereafter, Baj Singh defendant, who was armed with a double barrel .12 bore gun, moved towards Gurnam Singh and fired a shot from his gun from point blank range on Gurnam Singh. On being hit, both Jaswant Singh and Gurnam Singh fell down on the ground. Baj Singh defendant fired another shot in the air and threatened the witnesses around not to approach them. Thereafter, the defendants left the place with their respective weapons. When Gurdip Singh, Sarvinder Singh and Bhag Singh came near Gurnam Singh and Jaswant Singh, they found them dead. Since the body of Gurnam Singh was found to be little warm, these witnesses removed turban of Gurnam Singh and bound it around his waist in order to stop bleeding. After leaving the dead bodies of the deceased in the custody of Sarvinder Singh and Bhag Singh, Gurdip Singh left for the police-station to report the matter. He reached the police- station at about 9.20 P.M. and lodged the first information report. The case was investigated. The post-mortem examination was conducted upon the dead bodies of the deceased. Ajit Singh defendant was arrested on 6.9.1972. Darshan Singh Inspector recovered a licensed gun along with licence and two cartridges from Ajit Singh. Baj Singh defendant could not be arrested and he was declared a proclaimed offender. 5. The suit was contested by Ajit Singh defendant, the present appellant. Baj Singh defendant, however, did not appear to contest the suit despite the publication in the Newspaper. Darshan Singh Inspector recovered a licensed gun along with licence and two cartridges from Ajit Singh. Baj Singh defendant could not be arrested and he was declared a proclaimed offender. 5. The suit was contested by Ajit Singh defendant, the present appellant. Baj Singh defendant, however, did not appear to contest the suit despite the publication in the Newspaper. He was proceeded ex parte. In the written statement, Ajit Singh denied the allegations. His case is that Jaswant Singh and Gurnam Singh were used to excessive liquor and they had created bad blood in the village and there were many enemies of these persons. On the day of occurrence, they had quarrelled with Majhbis and they were murdered by unknown persons. He also stated that he alongwith Baj Singh has been falsely implicated in this case on account of long standing personal enmity with Gurdip Singh and Udham Singh. It was, however, admitted by Shri Ajit Singh that he was convicted and sentenced and his sentence was upheld by the High Court and he is not liable to pay the compensation. 6. From the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- 1. Whether the defendants committed the murder of Jaswant Singh and Gurnam Singh ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief. The parties led evidence in support of their case and after the conclusion of the trial both the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 7. A money decree for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by Shri Ajit Singh, the present appellant. 8. I have heard Shri R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri H.S. Bhullar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 9. Before me, learned counsel for the appellant has only given the challenge to the finding recorded by the trial Court on issue No. 2. He submitted that plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of Jaswant Singh while plaintiffs No. 6 to 10 are the legal heirs of Gurnam Singh. 9. Before me, learned counsel for the appellant has only given the challenge to the finding recorded by the trial Court on issue No. 2. He submitted that plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of Jaswant Singh while plaintiffs No. 6 to 10 are the legal heirs of Gurnam Singh. Both the legal hears of Jaswant Singh and Gurnam Singh, have claimed Rs. 30,000/- each by way of compensation. In these circumstances, a joint decree for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- could not be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. 10. There is a merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of Jaswant Singh. In these circumstances, a money decree for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- alone should have been passed in their favour. Similarly, plaintiffs No. 6 to 10 are the legal heirs of Gurnam Singh. Hence a money decree for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- should have been passed in favour of these plaintiffs. 11. In this view of the matter by dismissing the present appeal, the impugned judgment and decree is hereby modified and a money decree for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is passed in favour of the plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 against the defendants. Similarly, a money decree for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is passed in favour of plaintiffs No. 6 to 10 against the defendants. The defendants shall also pay the costs of the suit as well of this appeal. The counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 500/-. 12. With the above modification in the impugned judgment and decree, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. 13. If the death penalty awarded on Ajit Singh, the present appellant, has been executed, the decretal amount qua his share shall be realised from his legal representatives and it can also be realised from his estate. Appeal dismissed.