Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1333 (HP)

Rameshwar Kumar v. Kanta Devi

2019-09-09

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P., dated 07.09.2007, in Civil Appeal No.12-S/13 of 2005, titled as Smt. Kanta Devi Versus Rameshwar Kumar & another, vide which learned Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No.174/1 of 1996, titled as Kumari Kanta Devi Versus Rameshwar Kumar & another, decided on 29.10.2004, whereby learned trial Court dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.75,000/-, filed by present respondent Kanta Devi, allowed the suit and decreed the same for a sum of Rs.75,000/- with costs, against the present appellant. 2. Brief facts necessary for the decision of present appeal are that respondent/ plaintiff Kanta Devi filed a suit for recovery of Rs.75,000/-, as damages against defendants Rameshwar Kumar and Chander Shekhar. Her case was that her father was owner-in-possession of the land comprised in khasra No.323, measuring 1.16 bighas, situated in village Rampur Keonthal. Same was mortgaged by grand-father of plaintiff with one Paras Ram. It was redeemed by her father about 12-13 years back after paying the mortgage money. The land was in possession of her father for last more than 20 years. On 30.08.1995, plaintiff alongwith her father and other family members were working in the fields upon the said land, when defendants armed with sharp edged weapon came on the spot, trespassed over the suit land and started quarreling with plaintiff and her father. Defendants gave severe beatings to plaintiff and her father. Defendant No.1 struck a sharp edged weapon on the right forearm of plaintiff, causing Ulmnar Nerve injury. The matter was reported to the police, which lead to registration of F.I.R. No.200/95. Plaintiff was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhey Hospital, Shimla, where she was treated by the doctor. Defendants tried to pressurize the doctor to issue a Medico Legal Certificate, to the effect that the injuries suffered by plaintiff were simple. Plaintiff took up the matter against the doctor with the Medical Council, for professional misconduct. Injury caused to her forearm by defendant No.1 was a grievous injury. She nitially got treatment for said injury from Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital at Shimla and then at Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Plaintiff took up the matter against the doctor with the Medical Council, for professional misconduct. Injury caused to her forearm by defendant No.1 was a grievous injury. She nitially got treatment for said injury from Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital at Shimla and then at Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. She was operated for Ulmnar Nerve Injury at C.M.C., Ludhiana. She suffered physically as also mentally on account of injury, suffered by her, for which she had to undergo treatment for a period of more than nine months. Plaintiff was 25 years old when she suffered the injury, but on account of the same, she could not get engaged and found a suitable partner. Her treatment cost was Rs.13,153.50/ at C.M.C. Ludhiana. On travelling, she spent an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Besides this, she also spent more than Rs.30,000/- on her treatment and medicines at other places. On these basis, she claimed damages to the tune of Rs.75,000/- from defendants. 3. The suit was resisted by defendants. As per them, the suit was filed on account of enmity between father of plaintiff and defendant No.1, due to land dispute. As per defendants, the suit land was previously in possession of predecessor-in-interest of defendants, Smt. Chandi Devi, who gifted the same during her lifetime, to defendant No.1. The same was never redeemed as alleged by plaintiff nor possession of the land was with the father of plaintiff. Suit land never remained in possession either of plaintiff or her father and injury suffered by plaintiff was a self inflicted injury, which she suffered while cutting grass with 'Darati'. Defendants denied that they had caused any injury to plaintiff or that plaintiff was entitled for any damages, as alleged. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1.) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount on account of damages as alleged? OPP. (2.) Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. (3.) Whether the plaint lacks material particulars if so its effect? OPD. (4.) Relief". 5. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the issues so framed:- "Issue No.1: No. Issue No.2: Yes. Issue No.3: No. Issue No.4: Relief. OPD. (3.) Whether the plaint lacks material particulars if so its effect? OPD. (4.) Relief". 5. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the issues so framed:- "Issue No.1: No. Issue No.2: Yes. Issue No.3: No. Issue No.4: Relief. The suit is dismissed without cost as per operative portion of the judgment". 6. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. It held that statement of PW-4 Ram Chand father of plaintiff, proved that disputed land was still reflected in the name of Chandi Devi as mortgagee in the revenue record, which demonstrated that the suit land was not yet redeemed by the father of the plaintiff. Learned trial Court also held that plaintiff had also failed to establish possession of her father over the disputed land. 7. Learned trial Court also held that whereas the offence allegedly took place on 30.08.1995 and plaintiff was operated at C.M.C. Ludhiana in Janjary/February, 1996, there was nothing on record to link that plaintiff had been operated in C.M.C. Ludhiana with regard to the injury which she had suffered on 30.08.1995. Learned trial Court also held that even if it was to be assumed that damage was caused to the plaintiff, yet it was reimbursed to the father of plaintiff by his employer. It held that plaintiff had failed to prove that she was entitled to get damages from the defendants. Learned trial Court also held that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that the Criminal Court had not yet held defendants guilty in the Criminal Proceedings which had been put in motion by plaintiff. It held that though Civil and Criminal Proceedings were independent in nature and findings of the Criminal Court were not binding upon the Civil Court, yet as plaintiff had not been able to establish that her father had title over the suit property and she was in possession of the same, the suit, as framed, was not maintainable. On these basis, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. 8. The findings so returned by learned trial Court were set aside in appeal by learned Appellate Court, filed by plaintiff. On these basis, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. 8. The findings so returned by learned trial Court were set aside in appeal by learned Appellate Court, filed by plaintiff. While allowing the appeal, learned Appellate Court held that all the logics given by learned trial Court for dismissing plaintiff's suit were invalid, as the only point which learned trial Court was required to find out whether the injury to plaintiff's forearm was caused by defendants or not and if yes, then what amount of compensation, she was entitled to. Learned Appellate Court held that plaintiff had examined four eye-witnesses i.e. herself (PW-3), her father (PW-4) and two independent witnesses i.e. PW-5 Chet Ram and PW-6 Hem Singh, whose statements proved that injury on the body of plaintiff was inflicted by defendant No.1. Learned Appellate Court further held that plaintiff had clearly deposed in the Court that on 30.08.1995, she was cutting grass in the field and Yashodha was with her, who was also cutting grass. Her father and one Chet Ram were carrying grass from the field and one Hira Singh was also there. She stated that defendants came at the spot. Rameshwar was armed with 'Kulharu' and Chander Shekhar was armed with a 'Darat'. They started hurling abuses on her and also starting questioning her as to why she was cutting grass from the field. When she replied that she was cutting grass from her own field, defendant Rameshwar aimed a 'Kulharu' blow on her head and she raised her arm to ward off the blow. The blow landed on her right forearm and injury was sustained by her. She also stated that 'Darat' blow was given to her by Chander Shekhar. Her father, Chet Ram and Hira Singh intervened. Her father was also beaten up by defendants. On this, Yashodha also intervened and on hearing her cries, some other persons also gathered on the spot and on this, defendants ran away from the spot. Learned Appellate Court held that PW-4 Ram Chand stated that he had just gone towards his house with a bundle of hay on his back when quarrel took place. When he returned back, he saw that defendants were quarreling with his daughter and in his presence Rameshwar gave a blow with 'Kulharu', while Chander Shekhar gave a blow with 'Darati'. Learned Appellate Court held that PW-4 Ram Chand stated that he had just gone towards his house with a bundle of hay on his back when quarrel took place. When he returned back, he saw that defendants were quarreling with his daughter and in his presence Rameshwar gave a blow with 'Kulharu', while Chander Shekhar gave a blow with 'Darati'. Learned Appellate Court further held that PW-5 Chet Ram and PW-6 Hira Singh also deposed in the Court about arrival of defendants on the spot with sharp edged weapons. It further held that the evidence against Chander Shekhar was not satisfactory. Statement of PW-3 was not fully corroborated by other witnesses with regard to the role of Chander Shekhar. Learned Appellate Court held that even plaintiff's own father had made a shaky statement in this regard. Whereas plaintiff had stated that Chander Shekhar was having a 'Darat' in his hand and he gave her a 'Darat' blow, her father contradicted plaintiff by stating sometimes that Chander Shekhar gave 'Darat' blows and sometimes that Chander Shekhar gave blows with a 'Darati'. Learned Appellate Court held that if Chander Shekhar was having a 'Darat' in his hand, then he could not have given blows with a 'Darati' because 'Darat' and 'Darati' were not same and 'Darat' was bigger than a 'Darati'. It further held that PW-5 also stated that Chander Shekhar gave a 'Darat' blow, but it did not hit on any part of plaintiff's body. Learned Appellate Court observed that even PW-6 had not deposed about Chander Shekhar giving any 'Darat' blow on the body of plaintiff and all that this witness had stated, was that Rameshwar inflicted injury on the body of plaintiff. On these basis, it held that plaintiff had not proved that any injury was caused to her by Chander Shekhar. It further held that as far as Rameshwar was concerned, statements of the witnesses were quite consistent and the evidence on record was sufficient to prove that injury to plaintiff on her Ulmnar Nerve was caused by defendant Rameshwar. 9. On the question of quantum of compensation, learned Appellate Court held that there was evidence that Rs.13,153/- was paid by plaintiff at C.M.C. Ludhiana. It also held that it could be believed that every time she was accompanied by some attendant. 9. On the question of quantum of compensation, learned Appellate Court held that there was evidence that Rs.13,153/- was paid by plaintiff at C.M.C. Ludhiana. It also held that it could be believed that every time she was accompanied by some attendant. Learned Appellate Court also held that it had come in plaintiff's statement that in connection with her visits to Ludhiana, she had spent about Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.30,000/- was spent by her on her treatment elsewhere. It, thereafter, concluded that even if the statement that plaintiff had spent Rs.30,000/- on her treatment at places other than C.M.C. Ludhiana, was not to be believed, yet she must have spent some amount on her treatment. It held that plaintiff had claimed Rs.75,000/- as compensation, which was inclusive of pain and suffering suffered by her. Learned Appellate Court held that plaintiff had been suffering for a quite long time and she certainly was entitled to a substantial amount on account of pain and suffering. 10. On these basis, learned Appellate Court held that the overall claim of Rs.75,000/- claimed as compensation could not be said to be excessive and that plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.75,000/- from defendant No.1. Learned Appellate Court, thus, decreed the suit of plaintiff, for a sum of Rs.75,000/- with costs, against defendant No.1, whereas it dismissed the suit against defendant No.2. 11. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has filed the present appeal. 12. This appeal was admitted on 28.07.2008, on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court below misread and mis-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence with special reference to the statements of doctors PW-1, PW-7 and DW-3, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment and decree?" 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Appellate Court had erred in not appreciating that plaintiff had failed to prove on record that any injury was inflicted on her body by appellant. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Appellate Court had erred in not appreciating that plaintiff had failed to prove on record that any injury was inflicted on her body by appellant. He argued that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court was a result of misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence on record and compensation awarded by learned Appellate Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the Criminal Court had acquitted the accused, which included present appellant, of the offence alleged against them by the plaintiff. He further argued that when learned Appellate Court had come to the conclusion and rightly so that plaintiff had not been able to prove any case against defendant No.2, the same analogy ought to have been applied for appellant also because plaintiff had made same allegation against both the defendants and same set of evidence was led to prove the guilt of both defendants. On these basis, he submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court was not sustainable in law. 14. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1/ plaintiff has argued that there was no perversity with the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court and the same called for no interference. He argued that though it was not in dispute that in the Criminal Proceedings so initiated, the accused which includes present appellant, stood acquitted, however, decision of the Criminal Court was not material for the purpose of the adjudication of the civil lis filed by plaintiff, because Civil Suit was to be decided on the basis of evidence placed on record in the same and in Civil Suit, plaintiff had successfully proved that defendant No.1 had caused physical injury on the body of plaintiff and for same, she was rightly compensated by learned Appellate Court. He thus argued that as there was no merit in the appeal, the same be dismissed. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below as well as record of the case. 16. He thus argued that as there was no merit in the appeal, the same be dismissed. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below as well as record of the case. 16. The findings which have been returned by learned Appellate Court against present appellant are based on the basis of appreciation of evidence by it, on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that it stood proved on record that the injury on the body of plaintiff was caused by defendant No.1. 17. A perusal of the plaint filed by plaintiff, demonstrates that in para 3 of the plaint, it was mentioned that on 30.08.1995, when plaintiff alongwith her father and other family members were working in the field over land comprised in khasra No.323, measuring 1 bigha 16 biswas "both the defendants armed with sharp edged weapons came on the spot and trespassing over the land of father of plaintiff started quarreling with plaintiff and her father. Both the defendants gave severe beatings to plaintiff and her father. Defendant No.1 struck a sharp edged weapon on the right forearm of plaintiff, causing Ulmnar Nerve injury". 18. The defence of defendants as is borne out from the written statement was that the land in question never remained in possession of plaintiff or her father; family of her father wanted to grab the land forcibly alongwith other villagers; plaintiff while cutting the grass with 'Darati', hurt herself. 19. Now in this background, when one peruses the statement of PW-3 i.e. plaintiff, same demonstrates that she stated in the Court that on 30.08.1995, at around 6.00 p.m., she was cutting grass over the suit land alongwith one Yashodha, when defendants Rameshwar and Chander Shekhar came to the spot. She stated that Rameshwar had a 'Kulharu' in his hand, whereas Chander Shekhar had a 'Darat' in his hand. Defendants started abusing plaintiff. She further stated that in response when she told defendants that she was just cutting grass from her own land, Rameshwar tried to hit her with the 'Kulhari' on her hand and in order to save herself, she covered her head with her arms and as a result thereof, she suffered injury on her right arm on account of the blow given by Rameshwar. 20. 20. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that the factum of plaintiff having suffered injury has not been denied even by defendants. This is evident from the stand which has been taken by defendants in the written statement, wherein they have deposed that plaintiff suffered injury while cutting grass with a sickle. The factum of plaintiff receiving injury on account of a quarrel which ensued between plaintiff and defendants, has been proved on record by plaintiff not only by way of her statement, but also by way of the statements of her father (PW-4), as also the statements of PW-5 Chet Ram and PW-6 Hem Singh. 21. It is also duly borne out from the record that plaintiff was operated at C.M.C. Ludhiana with regard to the injury which she has mentioned in the plaint. There is nothing on record placed by defendants to demonstrate that plaintiff was operated in C.M.C.Ludhiana for injures other than those, which were inflicted on her body by defendant No.1, i.e. present plaintiff, on 30.08.1995. Dr. Vijay, who entered the witness box as PW-7, proved on record the factum of the plaintiff having been operated upon in C.M.C. Ludhiana with regard to the injury in issue. 22. In this backdrop, when one peruses the statement of DW-3 Smt. Suresh Sood, a perusal of the same demonstrates that patient was brought to her on 30.08.1995. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the injury suffered by plaintiff, from which bleeding was there, was suffered by her on her right forearm. She also admitted a suggestion given to her in her cross-examination to be correct that the injury which was mentioned by her as sustained by plaintiff in the Medico Legal Certificate issued by her, could have been inflicted by a 'Kulhari'. She also stated that it was possible that plaintiff had suffered an injury of Ulmnar Nerve. 23. In my considered view, in the light of what has been discussed above, it cannot be said that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court is a result of misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence on record. She also stated that it was possible that plaintiff had suffered an injury of Ulmnar Nerve. 23. In my considered view, in the light of what has been discussed above, it cannot be said that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court is a result of misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence on record. Whereas in order to prove her case, plaintiff besides examining herself and her father, had examined two independent witnesses, who corroborated her case and proved on record that the injury was inflicted upon the body of plaintiff by defendant No.1/ present appellant, did not lead any independent witness to prove his case. This circumstance completely belies the contention of appellant that he had not inflicted any injury on the body of respondent. 24. As far as the quantum of compensation granted by learned Appellate Court is concerned, it could not be demonstrated by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation so granted was either excessive or arbitrary arrived at. I would also like to point out, at this stage that this Court concurs with the findings returned by learned Appellate Court that the adjudication by a Criminal Court has no bearing as far as the adjudication of a dispute raised in a Civil Suit is concerned, because whereas in a Criminal Proceeding, it is not the complainant who is pursuing the case and further whereas in a Criminal proceeding, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused, it is not so in a Civil Suit. On the contrary, in a Civil Suit, if a plaintiff is able to prove its case against defendant, then the suit so filed by plaintiff, can be decreed, even if, in the same dispute, there is a verdict in favour of defendant in the Criminal Proceedings. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 25. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 25. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated. JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P., dated 07.09.2007, in Civil Appeal No.12-S/13 of 2005, titled as Smt. Kanta Devi Versus Rameshwar Kumar & another, vide which learned Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No.174/1 of 1996, titled as Kumari Kanta Devi Versus Rameshwar Kumar & another, decided on 29.10.2004, whereby learned trial Court dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.75,000/-, filed by present respondent Kanta Devi, allowed the suit and decreed the same for a sum of Rs.75,000/- with costs, against the present appellant. 2. Brief facts necessary for the decision of present appeal are that respondent/ plaintiff Kanta Devi filed a suit for recovery of Rs.75,000/-, as damages against defendants Rameshwar Kumar and Chander Shekhar. Her case was that her father was owner-in-possession of the land comprised in khasra No.323, measuring 1.16 bighas, situated in village Rampur Keonthal. Same was mortgaged by grand-father of plaintiff with one Paras Ram. It was redeemed by her father about 12-13 years back after paying the mortgage money. The land was in possession of her father for last more than 20 years. On 30.08.1995, plaintiff alongwith her father and other family members were working in the fields upon the said land, when defendants armed with sharp edged weapon came on the spot, trespassed over the suit land and started quarreling with plaintiff and her father. Defendants gave severe beatings to plaintiff and her father. Defendant No.1 struck a sharp edged weapon on the right forearm of plaintiff, causing Ulmnar Nerve injury. The matter was reported to the police, which lead to registration of F.I.R. No.200/95. Plaintiff was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhey Hospital, Shimla, where she was treated by the doctor. Defendants tried to pressurize the doctor to issue a Medico Legal Certificate, to the effect that the injuries suffered by plaintiff were simple. The matter was reported to the police, which lead to registration of F.I.R. No.200/95. Plaintiff was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhey Hospital, Shimla, where she was treated by the doctor. Defendants tried to pressurize the doctor to issue a Medico Legal Certificate, to the effect that the injuries suffered by plaintiff were simple. Plaintiff took up the matter against the doctor with the Medical Council, for professional misconduct. Injury caused to her forearm by defendant No.1 was a grievous injury. She nitially got treatment for said injury from Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital at Shimla and then at Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. She was operated for Ulmnar Nerve Injury at C.M.C., Ludhiana. She suffered physically as also mentally on account of injury, suffered by her, for which she had to undergo treatment for a period of more than nine months. Plaintiff was 25 years old when she suffered the injury, but on account of the same, she could not get engaged and found a suitable partner. Her treatment cost was Rs.13,153.50/ at C.M.C. Ludhiana. On travelling, she spent an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Besides this, she also spent more than Rs.30,000/- on her treatment and medicines at other places. On these basis, she claimed damages to the tune of Rs.75,000/- from defendants. 3. The suit was resisted by defendants. As per them, the suit was filed on account of enmity between father of plaintiff and defendant No.1, due to land dispute. As per defendants, the suit land was previously in possession of predecessor-in-interest of defendants, Smt. Chandi Devi, who gifted the same during her lifetime, to defendant No.1. The same was never redeemed as alleged by plaintiff nor possession of the land was with the father of plaintiff. Suit land never remained in possession either of plaintiff or her father and injury suffered by plaintiff was a self inflicted injury, which she suffered while cutting grass with 'Darati'. Defendants denied that they had caused any injury to plaintiff or that plaintiff was entitled for any damages, as alleged. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1.) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount on account of damages as alleged? OPP. (2.) Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. (3.) Whether the plaint lacks material particulars if so its effect? OPD. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1.) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount on account of damages as alleged? OPP. (2.) Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. (3.) Whether the plaint lacks material particulars if so its effect? OPD. (4.) Relief". 5. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court returned the following findings on the issues so framed:- "Issue No.1: No. Issue No.2: Yes. Issue No.3: No. Issue No.4: Relief. The suit is dismissed without cost as per operative portion of the judgment". 6. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. It held that statement of PW-4 Ram Chand father of plaintiff, proved that disputed land was still reflected in the name of Chandi Devi as mortgagee in the revenue record, which demonstrated that the suit land was not yet redeemed by the father of the plaintiff. Learned trial Court also held that plaintiff had also failed to establish possession of her father over the disputed land. 7. Learned trial Court also held that whereas the offence allegedly took place on 30.08.1995 and plaintiff was operated at C.M.C. Ludhiana in Janjary/February, 1996, there was nothing on record to link that plaintiff had been operated in C.M.C. Ludhiana with regard to the injury which she had suffered on 30.08.1995. Learned trial Court also held that even if it was to be assumed that damage was caused to the plaintiff, yet it was reimbursed to the father of plaintiff by his employer. It held that plaintiff had failed to prove that she was entitled to get damages from the defendants. Learned trial Court also held that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that the Criminal Court had not yet held defendants guilty in the Criminal Proceedings which had been put in motion by plaintiff. It held that though Civil and Criminal Proceedings were independent in nature and findings of the Criminal Court were not binding upon the Civil Court, yet as plaintiff had not been able to establish that her father had title over the suit property and she was in possession of the same, the suit, as framed, was not maintainable. On these basis, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. 8. On these basis, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. 8. The findings so returned by learned trial Court were set aside in appeal by learned Appellate Court, filed by plaintiff. While allowing the appeal, learned Appellate Court held that all the logics given by learned trial Court for dismissing plaintiff's suit were invalid, as the only point which learned trial Court was required to find out whether the injury to plaintiff's forearm was caused by defendants or not and if yes, then what amount of compensation, she was entitled to. Learned Appellate Court held that plaintiff had examined four eye-witnesses i.e. herself (PW-3), her father (PW-4) and two independent witnesses i.e. PW-5 Chet Ram and PW-6 Hem Singh, whose statements proved that injury on the body of plaintiff was inflicted by defendant No.1. Learned Appellate Court further held that plaintiff had clearly deposed in the Court that on 30.08.1995, she was cutting grass in the field and Yashodha was with her, who was also cutting grass. Her father and one Chet Ram were carrying grass from the field and one Hira Singh was also there. She stated that defendants came at the spot. Rameshwar was armed with 'Kulharu' and Chander Shekhar was armed with a 'Darat'. They started hurling abuses on her and also starting questioning her as to why she was cutting grass from the field. When she replied that she was cutting grass from her own field, defendant Rameshwar aimed a 'Kulharu' blow on her head and she raised her arm to ward off the blow. The blow landed on her right forearm and injury was sustained by her. She also stated that 'Darat' blow was given to her by Chander Shekhar. Her father, Chet Ram and Hira Singh intervened. Her father was also beaten up by defendants. On this, Yashodha also intervened and on hearing her cries, some other persons also gathered on the spot and on this, defendants ran away from the spot. Learned Appellate Court held that PW-4 Ram Chand stated that he had just gone towards his house with a bundle of hay on his back when quarrel took place. When he returned back, he saw that defendants were quarreling with his daughter and in his presence Rameshwar gave a blow with 'Kulharu', while Chander Shekhar gave a blow with 'Darati'. Learned Appellate Court held that PW-4 Ram Chand stated that he had just gone towards his house with a bundle of hay on his back when quarrel took place. When he returned back, he saw that defendants were quarreling with his daughter and in his presence Rameshwar gave a blow with 'Kulharu', while Chander Shekhar gave a blow with 'Darati'. Learned Appellate Court further held that PW-5 Chet Ram and PW-6 Hira Singh also deposed in the Court about arrival of defendants on the spot with sharp edged weapons. It further held that the evidence against Chander Shekhar was not satisfactory. Statement of PW-3 was not fully corroborated by other witnesses with regard to the role of Chander Shekhar. Learned Appellate Court held that even plaintiff's own father had made a shaky statement in this regard. Whereas plaintiff had stated that Chander Shekhar was having a 'Darat' in his hand and he gave her a 'Darat' blow, her father contradicted plaintiff by stating sometimes that Chander Shekhar gave 'Darat' blows and sometimes that Chander Shekhar gave blows with a 'Darati'. Learned Appellate Court held that if Chander Shekhar was having a 'Darat' in his hand, then he could not have given blows with a 'Darati' because 'Darat' and 'Darati' were not same and 'Darat' was bigger than a 'Darati'. It further held that PW-5 also stated that Chander Shekhar gave a 'Darat' blow, but it did not hit on any part of plaintiff's body. Learned Appellate Court observed that even PW-6 had not deposed about Chander Shekhar giving any 'Darat' blow on the body of plaintiff and all that this witness had stated, was that Rameshwar inflicted injury on the body of plaintiff. On these basis, it held that plaintiff had not proved that any injury was caused to her by Chander Shekhar. It further held that as far as Rameshwar was concerned, statements of the witnesses were quite consistent and the evidence on record was sufficient to prove that injury to plaintiff on her Ulmnar Nerve was caused by defendant Rameshwar. 9. On the question of quantum of compensation, learned Appellate Court held that there was evidence that Rs.13,153/- was paid by plaintiff at C.M.C. Ludhiana. It also held that it could be believed that every time she was accompanied by some attendant. 9. On the question of quantum of compensation, learned Appellate Court held that there was evidence that Rs.13,153/- was paid by plaintiff at C.M.C. Ludhiana. It also held that it could be believed that every time she was accompanied by some attendant. Learned Appellate Court also held that it had come in plaintiff's statement that in connection with her visits to Ludhiana, she had spent about Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.30,000/- was spent by her on her treatment elsewhere. It, thereafter, concluded that even if the statement that plaintiff had spent Rs.30,000/- on her treatment at places other than C.M.C. Ludhiana, was not to be believed, yet she must have spent some amount on her treatment. It held that plaintiff had claimed Rs.75,000/- as compensation, which was inclusive of pain and suffering suffered by her. Learned Appellate Court held that plaintiff had been suffering for a quite long time and she certainly was entitled to a substantial amount on account of pain and suffering. 10. On these basis, learned Appellate Court held that the overall claim of Rs.75,000/- claimed as compensation could not be said to be excessive and that plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.75,000/- from defendant No.1. Learned Appellate Court, thus, decreed the suit of plaintiff, for a sum of Rs.75,000/- with costs, against defendant No.1, whereas it dismissed the suit against defendant No.2. 11. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has filed the present appeal. 12. This appeal was admitted on 28.07.2008, on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court below misread and mis-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence with special reference to the statements of doctors PW-1, PW-7 and DW-3, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment and decree?" 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Appellate Court had erred in not appreciating that plaintiff had failed to prove on record that any injury was inflicted on her body by appellant. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Appellate Court had erred in not appreciating that plaintiff had failed to prove on record that any injury was inflicted on her body by appellant. He argued that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court was a result of misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence on record and compensation awarded by learned Appellate Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the Criminal Court had acquitted the accused, which included present appellant, of the offence alleged against them by the plaintiff. He further argued that when learned Appellate Court had come to the conclusion and rightly so that plaintiff had not been able to prove any case against defendant No.2, the same analogy ought to have been applied for appellant also because plaintiff had made same allegation against both the defendants and same set of evidence was led to prove the guilt of both defendants. On these basis, he submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court was not sustainable in law. 14. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1/ plaintiff has argued that there was no perversity with the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court and the same called for no interference. He argued that though it was not in dispute that in the Criminal Proceedings so initiated, the accused which includes present appellant, stood acquitted, however, decision of the Criminal Court was not material for the purpose of the adjudication of the civil lis filed by plaintiff, because Civil Suit was to be decided on the basis of evidence placed on record in the same and in Civil Suit, plaintiff had successfully proved that defendant No.1 had caused physical injury on the body of plaintiff and for same, she was rightly compensated by learned Appellate Court. He thus argued that as there was no merit in the appeal, the same be dismissed. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below as well as record of the case. 16. He thus argued that as there was no merit in the appeal, the same be dismissed. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below as well as record of the case. 16. The findings which have been returned by learned Appellate Court against present appellant are based on the basis of appreciation of evidence by it, on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that it stood proved on record that the injury on the body of plaintiff was caused by defendant No.1. 17. A perusal of the plaint filed by plaintiff, demonstrates that in para 3 of the plaint, it was mentioned that on 30.08.1995, when plaintiff alongwith her father and other family members were working in the field over land comprised in khasra No.323, measuring 1 bigha 16 biswas "both the defendants armed with sharp edged weapons came on the spot and trespassing over the land of father of plaintiff started quarreling with plaintiff and her father. Both the defendants gave severe beatings to plaintiff and her father. Defendant No.1 struck a sharp edged weapon on the right forearm of plaintiff, causing Ulmnar Nerve injury". 18. The defence of defendants as is borne out from the written statement was that the land in question never remained in possession of plaintiff or her father; family of her father wanted to grab the land forcibly alongwith other villagers; plaintiff while cutting the grass with 'Darati', hurt herself. 19. Now in this background, when one peruses the statement of PW-3 i.e. plaintiff, same demonstrates that she stated in the Court that on 30.08.1995, at around 6.00 p.m., she was cutting grass over the suit land alongwith one Yashodha, when defendants Rameshwar and Chander Shekhar came to the spot. She stated that Rameshwar had a 'Kulharu' in his hand, whereas Chander Shekhar had a 'Darat' in his hand. Defendants started abusing plaintiff. She further stated that in response when she told defendants that she was just cutting grass from her own land, Rameshwar tried to hit her with the 'Kulhari' on her hand and in order to save herself, she covered her head with her arms and as a result thereof, she suffered injury on her right arm on account of the blow given by Rameshwar. 20. 20. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of the fact that the factum of plaintiff having suffered injury has not been denied even by defendants. This is evident from the stand which has been taken by defendants in the written statement, wherein they have deposed that plaintiff suffered injury while cutting grass with a sickle. The factum of plaintiff receiving injury on account of a quarrel which ensued between plaintiff and defendants, has been proved on record by plaintiff not only by way of her statement, but also by way of the statements of her father (PW-4), as also the statements of PW-5 Chet Ram and PW-6 Hem Singh. 21. It is also duly borne out from the record that plaintiff was operated at C.M.C. Ludhiana with regard to the injury which she has mentioned in the plaint. There is nothing on record placed by defendants to demonstrate that plaintiff was operated in C.M.C.Ludhiana for injures other than those, which were inflicted on her body by defendant No.1, i.e. present plaintiff, on 30.08.1995. Dr. Vijay, who entered the witness box as PW-7, proved on record the factum of the plaintiff having been operated upon in C.M.C. Ludhiana with regard to the injury in issue. 22. In this backdrop, when one peruses the statement of DW-3 Smt. Suresh Sood, a perusal of the same demonstrates that patient was brought to her on 30.08.1995. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the injury suffered by plaintiff, from which bleeding was there, was suffered by her on her right forearm. She also admitted a suggestion given to her in her cross-examination to be correct that the injury which was mentioned by her as sustained by plaintiff in the Medico Legal Certificate issued by her, could have been inflicted by a 'Kulhari'. She also stated that it was possible that plaintiff had suffered an injury of Ulmnar Nerve. 23. In my considered view, in the light of what has been discussed above, it cannot be said that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court is a result of misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence on record. She also stated that it was possible that plaintiff had suffered an injury of Ulmnar Nerve. 23. In my considered view, in the light of what has been discussed above, it cannot be said that the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court is a result of misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence on record. Whereas in order to prove her case, plaintiff besides examining herself and her father, had examined two independent witnesses, who corroborated her case and proved on record that the injury was inflicted upon the body of plaintiff by defendant No.1/ present appellant, did not lead any independent witness to prove his case. This circumstance completely belies the contention of appellant that he had not inflicted any injury on the body of respondent. 24. As far as the quantum of compensation granted by learned Appellate Court is concerned, it could not be demonstrated by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation so granted was either excessive or arbitrary arrived at. I would also like to point out, at this stage that this Court concurs with the findings returned by learned Appellate Court that the adjudication by a Criminal Court has no bearing as far as the adjudication of a dispute raised in a Civil Suit is concerned, because whereas in a Criminal Proceeding, it is not the complainant who is pursuing the case and further whereas in a Criminal proceeding, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused, it is not so in a Civil Suit. On the contrary, in a Civil Suit, if a plaintiff is able to prove its case against defendant, then the suit so filed by plaintiff, can be decreed, even if, in the same dispute, there is a verdict in favour of defendant in the Criminal Proceedings. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 25. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.