Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 384 (PNJ)

Bara Masih v. Jagjit Singh

2002-04-09

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
ORDER Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - Rehmat Masih, aged 14/15 years, son of the plaintiff- appellants, was killed by the defendant-respondents on February 16, 1983. The dispute had arisen between the parties on the sharing of meat of the blue bull, which was killed after falling in the tank of the defendants after being chased by the stary dogs. In the suffice that ensued, Jagjit Singh took out his pistol and fired two shots, out of which one bullet hit Rehmat Masih in the chest and the other hit Pritam Singh on his mouth. Rehmat Masih succcumed to his injuries there and then, while Pritam Singh died a year thereafter. Dr. Sant Parkash Singh of Civil Hospital, Miuktsar, gave the opinion that the death of Rehmat Masih was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury on the back and left side of scalp with a fire-arm. Jarnail Singh defendant is also said to have reached the spot with a licensed gun with which he is alleged to have fired one shot, but it did not hit anybody. 2. Both the defendants were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 302/307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Jarnail Singh was acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated February 27, 1984 and Jagjit Singh defendant was convicted under Sections 302/307, Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Jagjit Singh was also acquitted by the High Court on November 28, 1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 183-DB of 1984. It was held by the learned Division Bench that Jagjit Singh had fired two shots with which Rehmat Masih was killed, in exercise of the right of private defence of his brother Parmatma Singh. 3. The plaintiffs Bara Masih and Smt. Kesro are the parents of Rehmat Masih. They filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for the murder of their son Rehmat Masih by defendants Jagjit Singh and Jarnail Singh. It was stated that Rehmat Masih deceased was having robust health and he was a brilliant student of 8th Class at the time of his death. Further it was stated that Rehmat Masih used to earn 14-15 rupees per day as labour charges after coming from the school. 4. In the written statement the defendants set out a different story. It was stated that Rehmat Masih deceased was having robust health and he was a brilliant student of 8th Class at the time of his death. Further it was stated that Rehmat Masih used to earn 14-15 rupees per day as labour charges after coming from the school. 4. In the written statement the defendants set out a different story. According to them, in fact Jagjit Singh and his brother Baljit Singh were not present when the blue bull fell in the tank of the tubewell. But instead Parmatma Singh son of Jarnail Singh defendant was there. Rehmat Masih, Subhash Masih, Pritam Singh and Ladda Masih son of Mansi Masih came there and all of them removed the skin of the animal. Parmatma Singh allegedly gave some meat to them and took away the remaining meat and the skin of the blue bull in the tractor trolley to the village. After coming to the village. Rehmat Masih and Subhash Masih made more demand of the meat from Parmatma Singh, but he refused to oblige them. Annoyed thereby, Rehmat Masih and Pritam Singh armed with Gandasas and Ladda Masih armed with dang and Subhash Masih armed with a pistol came to the house of Parmatma Singh and started causing injuries to him. According to them, a shot was firmed from the pistol by Subhash Masih, which hit the left arm of Parmatma Singh. On the alarm raised by Parmatma Singh, Jagjit Singh defendant was attracted to the spot and in the private defence of person of his brother, Jagjit Singh fired two shots. 5. Learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Muktsar, vide judgment dated April 4, 1987 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs and awarded a sum of Rs. 32,000/-, with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent annum, to them. The recovery was to be effected from the defendants. The learned District Judge, Fridkot, on appeal by the defendants, reversed the finding of the learned Sub Judge and allowed the appeal, on the ground that the injuries found on the person of Parmatma Singh could not be self-suffered and Jagjit Singh had fired the shots in private defence of person of his brother. 6. Now Bara Mashi and Smt. Kesro plaintiffs have filed this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge. 7. 6. Now Bara Mashi and Smt. Kesro plaintiffs have filed this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 8. Mr. H.S. Gill, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that Jagjit Singh had acted in defence of the person of his brother Parmatma Singh, but by no stretch of imagination the alleged right of self defence could be stretched to the extent of killing a boy of 14/15 years. Further, he argued that all the 14 injuries found on the person of Parmatma Singh were of simple nature. 9. On the other hand Mr. G.S. Punia, learned counsel for the defendant- respondents, has contended that as many as 14 injuries were found on the person of Parmatma Singh. Out of them, two were fire-arm injuries. According to him, Jagjit Singh was well within his rights to fire shots. 10. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. All the 14 injuries found on the person of Parmatma Singh were of simple nature. Even the fire-arm injures were on the left fore-arm, which is a non-vital part of the body. About injury No. 10, which is a fire-arm injury, the doctor gave the opinion that there was scorching around the wound. This observation of the doctor goes to show that the said wound may have been suffered by Parmatma Singh of his own accord as it is at a point where no harm could have been caused to him. 11. On the other hand, Jagjit Singh respondent fired two shots, which hit two persons and both of them have been killed. This shows that though right of private defence of person may be available to him, but the right was not available to him to such an extent that he could kill two persons. 12. By now it is settled that even though the accused may have been acquitted by the Criminal court, damages can still be awarded to the victim, as the standard of proof in a criminal case is different while acquitting the accused, than the one when the damages are to be awarded to the victim in a civil suit. 12. By now it is settled that even though the accused may have been acquitted by the Criminal court, damages can still be awarded to the victim, as the standard of proof in a criminal case is different while acquitting the accused, than the one when the damages are to be awarded to the victim in a civil suit. The plaintiffs are the parents of the young boy, who had been killed at the hands of the defendants. The boy was studying in 8th Class at the time of his death. It has come on record that while studying, he was also doing labour and in this way was supporting his parents. In my view, the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Muktsar, has awarded a very fair compensation to the plaintiffs. 13. In view of the above discussion, I allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge is restored. Appeal allowed.