Kartar Singh & Others vs Baldev Kaur & Others

Nidhi Gupta, J

The defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts beloww whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 6 herein, for recovery of Rs.5 lakh as compensatioon/damages payable by the appellants for committing actionable wrong, unlawful and tortuous acct by committing murder of Sh. Sohna Singh son of Jit Singh, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

The plaintiffs are the widow and 5 children of deceased Sohna Singh. Vide the impugned judgments andd decrees, the learned Courts below had decreed the suit of the plaintifffs on the basis of evidence led before it; in particular the evidence of PW3 Dr. Beant Singh who had proved on record thhe attested copy of Post-Morttem Report (Ex.PW3/B) of the deceased Sohna Singh. As per the said Post-Mortem Report, cause of death of Sohna Singh was due to heart attack; and the viscera report showed that cause of deaath was due to “...myocardial infraction which was precipitated by spleen ruupture and clotted blood preseent in abdominal cavity...”. The plaintiffs had duly proven their case that the defendants had caused injuries upon Sohna Singh which he could not bear and had died on the spot. Copy of FIR was pllaced on record. The income of the deceased Sohna Singh was also proven to be Rs.3,60,000/- per annum. It was proved that the deceased was main brreadwinner of the family and due to his death, economic loss had been caused to the family. Accordinngly, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed withh costs by both the Courts below; and they were held entitled to recovery of Rs.5 lakh as compensation from the defendants in equal share.

The defendants had filed the present appeal in which Notice of Motion was issued vide order dated 30.05.2016 by Co-ordinate Bench which reads as follows: -

“Learned counsel for the appellaant contends that the trial is still pending, therefore the suit for damages on account of the same very incident could not be maintainable. Notice of motion for 9.9.2016.

In the meantime, operation of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed till thhe next date of hearing.”

Thereafter, the matter has beeen adjourned primarily on the request of leearned counsel for the appellants/defendants. On the last date of hearing i.e. 08.01.2025, following order was passed: -

“It is submitted by learned counnsel for the respondents that the sole argument made by the apppellants before this Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion was that the respondent/plaintiff could not have filed the suit for damages as the trial in respect of the incident in question was still pending. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the appellants noww stand convicted on 03.6.2017 in FIR No.85 dated 18.7.2010, registered under Sections 302, 323 and 450 IPC, at Police Station Maur. It is accordingly contended that the present appeal has been rendered infructuous.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has no

instructions in this  regard and seeks  some time to get

necessary instructions.

Adjourned to 08.04.2025.”

Today, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has handed over in Court a copy of judgment dated 03.06.2017 passed by the learned Addditional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which is taken on record, whereby thee appellants stand convicted inn FIR No.85 dated 18.07.2010 registered unnder Sections 302, 323 and 450 IPC at Police Station Maur; and convicts are sentenced to undergo imprisonmment as follows:-

Ld. Counsel for the apppellants is unable to deny the above fact. In view of the above admitted position, no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. Courts below.

The present appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.