Naginder Singh vs Hazura Singh

Hemant Gupta, J.—Defendant No. 1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 04.10.1995 granting a sum of Rs. 1 lac as damages for causing wrongful death of Karamjit Singh, son of the plaintiffs. The appeal against such judgment and decree remained unsuccessful on 18.02.1997. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondents that their son namely Karamjit Singh was murdered by the defendants on 30.10.1989 at Village Aneer, P.S. Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, when the deceased and plaintiff No. 1 i.e. father of the deceased were present at their fish farm. It is asserted that while working in their fields adjacent to the fish farm of the plaintiffs, the defendants set on fire the parali (husk) in their fields. On this, plaintiff No. 1 and his son Karamjit Singh asked the defendants as to why they have done so, as the fire will damage the eucalyptus trees, but the defendants started quarrelling. Both of them had spade in their hands. In the meantime, Naginder Singh gave a blow to Karamjit Singh, which hit on his head. Consequent to such injury, Karamjit Singh died on way to Hospital near Phagwara. The plaintiffs assert that Karamjit Singh was 28 years of old and he was only the earning member of their family.

In the written statement, the defendants denied the allegations and asserted that Karamjit Singh was a trespasser, who wanted to murder defendant No. 1 and that defendant No. 1 inflicted injuries on the person of Karamjit Singh in self-defence. It was asserted that putting waste parali (husk) on fire, is an agricultural operation and that the heap of parali was more than 30 karams away from the eucalyptus trees belonging to the plaintiffs, therefore, there was no cause of any grievance of the deceased. It was the enmity between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which led to false implication of the defendants.

In support of their respective contentions, plaintiff No. 1 himself appeared as PW-3 apart from examining PW-1 Constable Om Parkash, who proved the FIR Ex. P1 and PW-2 Dr. J.P. Singh, S.M.O. who proved the postmortem report Ex. PW-2/A. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant No. 1 Naginder Singh as D.W.-1 and closed the evidence.

After considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and such judgment and decree was affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court, as mentioned above.

Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the wrongful death of Karamjit Singh by the appellant. The evidence led by the plaintiffs is sketchy and is not conclusive to return a finding of wrongful causing of death by the appellant.

I do not find any merit in the argument raised. PW-2 Dr. J.P. Singh has proved the post-mortem report as Ex. PW-2/A and as per such report, the cause of death is the injury on head. PW-3 Hazura Singh, father of the deceased, deposed that he was present with Karamjit Singh at the time, when Naginder Singh inflicted injuries on his person. He also deposed that his son Karamjit Singh died due to the injuries inflicted by the defendant. On the other hand, the appellant while appearing as his own witness, has not denied the causing of injury to the deceased Karamjit Singh and asserted that Karamjit Singh was the aggressor and to protect himself, he has given spade blow, which landed on the head of the deceased. The findings before the Civil Court are to be recorded on the basis of probabilities of reasonableness, of the evidence produced. Such evidence coupled with the statement of defendant that he has caused injuries in his self-defence is sufficient to prove that defendant was the cause of the death of the deceased Karamjit Singh. The plea of self-defence is a plea to escape from criminal culpability for an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. But such is not a defence in the civil proceedings. The evidence on record conclusively proved the wrongful causing of death of Karamjit Singh by the defendant-appellant. Such finding is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. Even on re-appreciation of evidence, I do not find that any ground is made out to take a different view than what has been taken by the learned Courts below. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The same is, thus, dismissed.