Bhajan Singh and Another vs Smt. Joginder Kaur

A S. Nehra, J.—Defendants-appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1988 passed by Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50, 000/- as compensation on account of death of Kartar Singh caused by the defendants-appellants. Kartar Singh deceased was killed by the appellants on 4-3-1989 at about 7 P.M. in the area of village Basant Kot, Tehsil Batala, on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered against the appellants. The appellants were prosecuted, tried and convicted u/s 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Their conviction was upheld by the High Court. It was alleged that on 3-4-1982 at about 7 P.M., Harbans Singh along with his two sons Kartar Singh and Jagtar Singh was present in his house. Kanar Singh went out in the lane for urinating when Bhajan Singh appeared in the lane from the direction of Chuhar Singh''s house raising shrieks which attracted Harbans Singh and Jagtar Singh to the lane. Kartar Singh forbade Bhajan Singh from committing such rowdyism but the latter insisted on doing so. Bhajan Singh went to his house saying that he would leach him a lesson for insulting. Soon thereafter, both the appellants armed with swords came to the lane, when the deceased and the witnesses were still standing there. Smt. Tori, mother of the defendants-appellants, tried to dissuade them not to proceed further and resort to violence but they started giving blows with their weapons to the deceased. Sulakhan Singh gave a blow with the sword, hitting the deceased on his neck, on receipt of which he fell down. Bhajan Singh then gave a blow with his sword on the head of the deceased. Harbans Singh and Jagtar Singh caused injuries to the appellants with their respective weapons in self-defence. Kartar singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Batala, but he succumbed to his injuries on the way to the Hospital. Post-mortem examination was conducted. The case was investigated resulting in their conviction and sentence as indicated above.

The deceased was a younh lad of 22 years, employed in the Punjab State Electricity Board and getting Rs. 500/- per month as salary.

The defendants-appellants in their written statement have denied the case of the plaintiff-respondent.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the defendants prematurely cut short the life of Kartar Singh deceased, as alleged?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages? If so, how much?

Relief.

The parties produced their evidence and after going through it, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Batala, decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff and, consequently, the suit was decreed. The defendants filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, which was also dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has not challenged the finding of the learned lower Courts on issue No. 1. He has, however, challenged the finding of the learned lower Courts on issue No. 2. It has been contended that the plaintiff-respondent was not entitled to the amount which has been awarded in her favour. It was argued that the plaintiff-respondent was not wholly dependent on the deceased. In support of this, he had relied upon the statement of PW9 Harbans singh wherein he stated that Kartar Singh deceased used to give Rs. 400/- per month to the plaintiff-respondent and that he (PW9) was getting Rs. 1, 100/- per month and he used to maintain Smt. Joginder Kaur at that time and even now. It may be pointed out that the deceased was about 22 years of age and that he was not married but he was likely to be married very soon. The plaintiff-respondent is the mother of the deceased and, therefore, she is entitled to the compensation from the appellants.

I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants. Therefore, the appeal filed by them is dismissed.