Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 468 (PNJ)

Bawa Singh v. Karam Kaur

2001-04-27

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a defendants appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1978 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Dasuya, who granted a money decree for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of damages against the defendants. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner. 2. Smt. Karam Kaur, Smt. Dhian Kaur, Smt. Harbhajan Singh and Ms. Mohinder Kaur minor daughter of Pritam Singh, filed a money suit for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and they claimed damages against the defendants for allegedly committing the murder of Shri Pritam Singh. 3. The case set up in the trial Court was that plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 are minors and they have sued the defendants through their mother Shrimati Dhian Kaur plaintiff No. 2. Pritam Singh deceased was the son the plaintiff No. 1. Smt. Karam Kaur and was the husband of plaintiff No. 2 and father of plaintiffs No. 3 and 4. He belonged to village Atalgarh. The defendants had strained relations with aforesaid Pritam Singh and whenever they passed by the side of the house of Pritam Singh they used to abuse him openly. Pritam Singh deceased was annoyed by the misbehaviour of the defendants and therefore, with the help of a few friends he caught hold of defendant No. 2 Chain Singh. He took him to his house and kept him in illegal confinement in his house. On this case under Sections 324/342 Indian Penal Code was registered against Pritam Singh and few others which ended into compromise between the parties but in spite of the compromise, the defendants had the grudge against Shri Pritam Singh. On 4.10.1970 Pritam Singh alongwith his mother was going on a bicycle to attend the marriage ceremony at village Zahidpur and when they reached near the village Ghalion, defendant No. 1 Bawa Singh and Balwant Singh defendant No. 4 came from behind on bicycles. They called Pritam Singh in a challenging manner. It was again protested by Shri Pritam Singh. Thereafter, Bawa Singh and Balwant Singh defendants passed ahead of Pritam Singh. In the meanwhile, two more persons Chanan Singh and Jagir Singh were also coming behind the cycle of Pritam Singh. They called Pritam Singh in a challenging manner. It was again protested by Shri Pritam Singh. Thereafter, Bawa Singh and Balwant Singh defendants passed ahead of Pritam Singh. In the meanwhile, two more persons Chanan Singh and Jagir Singh were also coming behind the cycle of Pritam Singh. When Pritam Singh and his mother Karam Kaur plaintiff No. 1 reached the turning of Kala Bag, Balwant Singh and Bawa Singh defendants got down from the cycles and stood in the way of Pritam Singh and stopped the cycle as a result of which Smt. Karam Kaur fell on the ground along with the cycle. Baba Singh then called Chain Singh and Gurbux Singh defendants No. 2 and 3 who were working in the nearby field saying that old enmity of Pritam Singh might be avenged then and there. All the defendants forcibly lifted said Pritam Singh to the field of Chain Singh where he had installed a flour mill. The occurrence was witnessed by Chanan Singh and Jagir Singh who had reached there by that time. Karam Kaur and said Chanan Singh and Jagir Singh followed the defendants. One Shangara Singh also reached there from the side of village Phirni and he too witnessed the occurrence. It is alleged that Shri Baba Singh defendant No. 1 was armed with lathi which has a spike and other defendants were armed with simple lathis. All the four defendants threw Pritam Singh on the ground near the flour mill and belaboured the said Pritam Singh collectively with their respective weapons inflicting as many as 21 injuries on his person. The eye witnesses who were present raised alarm to save Pritam Singh but without any effect. Smt. Karam Kaur plaintiff No. 1 informed the police and lodged FIR in police station Mukerian. The police of Police Station Mukerian registered a case against the defendants and investigation was done by SI Hazara Singh who reached the spot after a few hours of the occurrence. He sent Pritam Singh to the hospital for medical aid but Pritam Singh died near the hospital Mukerian as a result of fatal injuries received by him from the hands of the defendants. 4. He sent Pritam Singh to the hospital for medical aid but Pritam Singh died near the hospital Mukerian as a result of fatal injuries received by him from the hands of the defendants. 4. At the initial stage, case was registered under Sections 308/342 Indian Penal Code and later on it was converted under Section 304 Indian Penal Code and after the death of Shri Pritam Singh it was converted into under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After concluding the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the defendants under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment dated 26.6.1971. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that deceased Pritam Singh at the time of death was 35 years of age. He was enjoying a perfect health. He was expected to live atleast up to the age of 70 years. He was agriculturist by profession and his income has about Rs. 400/- per month. Plaintiffs were entirely dependents on the earning of Pritam Singh and by wrongful act of the defendants they were deprived of the income of Pritam Singh at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. It was alleged in the plaint that but for the wrongful act of the defendants the plaintiffs normally would have enjoyed the income of Pritam Singh for another 35 years and thus they have been deprived of Rs. 1,26,000/-. The plaintiff have brought the suit only for Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that they could not afford to pay the court-fee. With these allegations, the plaintiffs made a prayer that a money decree for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be passed by way of damages against the defendants. 5. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants and they filed the written statement and they denied the allegations of the plaint. 6. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff No. 2 Smt. Dhian Kaur widow of Pritam Singh died. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs in which they denied the allegations of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 are minors ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are dependents of Pritam Singh deceased and have locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 are minors ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are dependents of Pritam Singh deceased and have locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP 3. Whether the defendants caused the murder of Pritam Singh deceased by their wilful and wrongful act on 4.10.1970. ? OPP 4. To what amount of damages of plaintiffs are entitled and against whom ? OPP 5. Relief. 7. The parties led evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the trial, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 are the minor sons and daughters of Shri Pritam Singh. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that plaintiffs were dependents upon the income of the deceased and, therefore, they have the locus standi to file the suit. Issue No. 3 was decided against the defendants and it was observed by the trial Court that defendants were responsible for the murder of Pritam Singh and they had committed this act in a wrongful manner. Issue No. 4 was partly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the trial court granted a money decree for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs instead of Rs. 50,000/- for the reasons given in paras No. 15 to 20 of the judgment, which I am reproducing as under :- "15. PW1 Jagir Singh has stated that at the time of death of Pritam Singh he was about 35 years and he was agriculturist by profession. He used to earn between Rs. 300/400 per month. PW2 Chanan Singh has also stated that Pritam Singh at the time of his death was about 35 years. PW3 Shangra Singh has deposed that Pritam Singh at the time of his death was about 35 years and his income was between Rs. 300/- 400 per month. PW4 Diwan Chand who is the cousin of Pritam Singh has also given similar statement corroborating the evidence of above PWs. He has, however, added in his statement that his grand father at the time of his death was about 60 years of age. PW5 Dr. 300/- 400 per month. PW4 Diwan Chand who is the cousin of Pritam Singh has also given similar statement corroborating the evidence of above PWs. He has, however, added in his statement that his grand father at the time of his death was about 60 years of age. PW5 Dr. Sant Parkash Singh has also stated in his statement who did post mortem examination, the age of Pritam Singh as 35 years, PW7 Karam Kaur has also stated in her statement that her son Pritam Singh at the time of death was about 35 years of age and his income was between Rs. 300/400 per month. 16. In rebuttal defendants have examined 8 DWs namely Narain Singh DW1, Puran Chand DW2, Ajit Singh DW3, Man Singh DW4, Jaswant Singh DW5, Surjit Singh DW6, Joginder Singh DW7 and DW8 Bawa Singh. The cumulative evidence of these witnesses is that Pritam Singh deceased at the time of death was about 50/55 years of age and he was weak in health. He was not doing any work and he was always in drunken condition. He had illicit relations with outside ladies where he used to spend his entire income. He murdered his father because he prevented him from going to outside ladies of ill repute. He sold his land for purposes of procuring money for spending to satisfy his bad habits. He used to cheat the people for the purpose of getting money from them. 17. I have considered the above evidence of the parties very carefully. The evidence of the plaintiffs on the point of age of deceased is very much cogent and reliable one. Dr. Sant Parkash Singh has been examined as PW5 who has conducted the post mortem examination of Pritam Singh. He has given the age of Pritam Singh as 35 years. This version is fully corroborated by the statements of other PWs who have also given the age of Pritam Singh as 35 years. The version of the defendants that the age of Pritam Singh was about 50/60 years at the time of his death is false one and this wrong version has been given for the purposes of avoiding payment of compensation to the plaintiffs. The version of the defendants that the age of Pritam Singh was about 50/60 years at the time of his death is false one and this wrong version has been given for the purposes of avoiding payment of compensation to the plaintiffs. Anyhow to minimize chances of exaggeration by the plaintiffs on the point of age I consider that I shall be fully justified if I hold that Pritam Singh deceased at then time of his death was of 40 years of age. Accordingly, for the purposes of calculating damages I hold that deceased Pritam Singh was 40 years of age at the time of death. 18. The defendants contention is that deceased Pritam Singh had no regular income and he was not employed in any regular service. He was also not income tax assessee. During his lifetime he sold and mortgaged his ancestral land for satisfying his bad habits. In this connection they have referred to copies of jamabandies and Khasra Girdawaries Ex.D.1 to D.4. Further the defendants have also contended that deceased Pritam Singh murdered his father because he prevented him from indulging bad habits and he was challaned under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code. However, deceased Pritam Singh was acquitted in that case because Karam Kaur his mother did not support the prosecution case. Finally the learned counsel for the defendants has argued that for fixing the quantum of damages in favour of the plaintiffs the principles laid down by the Honble High Court and Supreme Court should be followed viz. :- i) Age of deceased. ii) Average of family. iii) Age of claimants. iv) Dependency and how much paid after death of his father. v) How much the claimants spend in a month. vi) Income of deceased if regular and daily, weekly or monthly. vii) Education and skill of the deceased. viii) Property owned by deceased and claimants. ix) The provable income which used to come during life time. x) Family of deceased consisting of how many persons with age. xi) The precuniary advantage of deceased to claimants. xii) Provable uncertainly of life. 19. Learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the span of life of a man is about 50 years and deceased Pritam Singh was about 40/45 years old at the time of his death. x) Family of deceased consisting of how many persons with age. xi) The precuniary advantage of deceased to claimants. xii) Provable uncertainly of life. 19. Learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the span of life of a man is about 50 years and deceased Pritam Singh was about 40/45 years old at the time of his death. Apart from this point the learned counsel for the defendants has also drawn my attention to the fact that Honble High Court reduced the sentence of the defendants from life imprisonment to 8 years by changing the nature of offence from sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code into Section 326 Indian Penal Code. As such, the learned counsel for the defendants has argued that reasonable damages should be awarded to the plaintiff. 20. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants. From the above arguments I infer that tacitly he has argued that damages may be awarded to the plaintiffs. But his contention is only that reasonable amount should be granted. Deceased Pritam Singh was not a man of good character and he had no regular income. Normally a man is expected to live up to the age of 60 years. The evidence of the plaintiffs is that income of deceased Pritam Singh was Rs. 300/- 400/- per month. A suggestion was put to DW8 Bawa Singh who is defendant No. 1 whether deceased Pritam Singh owned a truck and he plied the same on hire basis. He admitted in his cross- examination that Pritam Singh owned a truck also at the time of his death. From all this evidence reasonable inference can be drawn that the income of the deceased Pritam Singh must be about Rs. 300/- per month and out of this Rs. 300/- his dependents who are plaintiffs must be getting Rs. 150/- per month from him. As a whole, the plaintiffs have suffered a great loss in the death of Pritam Singh and the contentions of the defendants that Pritam Singh was of bad character and he indulged in bad habits are not substantiated by cogent evidence. None of the DWs could point out that Pritam Singh was ever convicted in any case under the Excise Act or any other type. These contentions of the defendants are, therefore, rejected. None of the DWs could point out that Pritam Singh was ever convicted in any case under the Excise Act or any other type. These contentions of the defendants are, therefore, rejected. As a result of my findings I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs are fully entitled to be compensation by way of awarding damages to them. As already stated Pritam Singh deceased was about 40 years at the time of his death. Normally span of life is 60 years. It means that plaintiffs have been deprived from the income of deceased Pritam Singh for these 20 years and monthly maintenance which they used to get as already mentioned was about Rs. 150/- from him. It means that in one year the plaintiffs have been deprived of Rs. 1800/- because of the wrongful acts of the defendants. In this way the plaintiffs have suffered a loss of Rs. 36,000/-. As one of the plaintiffs Smt. Dhian Kaur has died during the pendency of the suit, therefore, Rs. 6000/- are reduced from the amount which all the plaintiffs have suffered a loss as a result of death of Pritam Singh deceased. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs. 30000/- as damages from the defendants. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs." 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case and I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. 9. It is proved on record that Pritam Singh was murdered by the defendants. He was 35 years of age at the time of his death and he was agriculturist by profession. He was a married person and the deceased earning during those days was Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per month. It was further proved on the record that the cause of death of Shri Pritam Singh was injuries. I am not inclined to believe the defence of the appellant that deceased was not earning anything or that he was not having an good health. The deceased was married. He had two children. Therefore, in all probabilities, the deceased was a earning person and he was in a position to feed four persons i.e. his mother, wife and two children. The deceased was married. He had two children. Therefore, in all probabilities, the deceased was a earning person and he was in a position to feed four persons i.e. his mother, wife and two children. There is not an iota of evidence to suggest that deceased was a man of bad character or that he was wasting his money. There is no evidence on the record to show that deceased was aged about 50 or 60 years because Dr. Sant Parkash who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased gave the opinion that deceased was aged 35 years at the time of his death. After deducting the personal expenses, the deceased must be contributing minimum Rs. 200/- per month to his family members in order to maintain them. In this manner annual dependency of the plaintiffs could be easily assessed at Rs. 2400/- and by applying a multiplier of 16 the compensation which could be awarded to the plaintiffs, in my opinion, should be Rs. 38400/- but in the present appeal, the trial Court has already awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. on the lower side. There is no cross-appeal from the side of the plaintiffs. 10. In this view of the matter, there is not scope of interference in the present appeal. The same is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.