RAGHBINDER SINGH Vs. BANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bant Kaur, the widow of Lal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur, his son and daughter respectively filed a suit (No. 877 of December 20, 1994) in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs only) as damages from Jang Singh and his two sons Raghbinder Singh and Jinder Singh (Harjinder Singh) who, according to them, had killed Lal Singh in an occurrence that took place at village Kumbherwal (P.S. Ranike), Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur, Punjab, on August 7, 1994 at 11:30am. The trial court by judgment and order dated March 7, 1998 found and held that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 murdered Lal Singh over property dispute and they were, therefore, liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the loss of their dependency and mental agony suffered by them. The trial court then calculated the compensation payable to the plaintiffs and arrived at the sum of Rs. 2,40,000.00 (rupees two lakhs forty thousand only). However, since the plaintiffs had claimed the lower sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakhs only), it decreed the suit for that amount. The two defendants, Jang Singh and Raghbinder Singh, against whom the suit was decreed, took the matter in appeal (Civil Appeal No. 43 of April 17, 1998). But the District Judge, Sangrur, dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated July 27, 2000 without any modification in the decree passed by the trial court. The two defendants then carried the matter to the High Court in second appeal (RSA No. 4562 of 2000). The High Court dismissed the second appeal by a brief order dated, December 18, 2000 observing that no case was made out for any interference in second appeal. Raghbinder Singh, alone, then brought up this matter in appeal by grant of special leave, impleading his father defendant No. 1 before the trial court as proforma respondent No. 4.

(2.) It appears that the civil proceedings for damages instituted by the widow and the children of the deceased moved much faster than the criminal proceedings against the three accused (defendants in the civil proceedings) on the charge of committing murder of Lal Singh. And this seems to have provided to the appellant the first ground to challenge the judgments and orders passed against him by the courts. It was contended before this Court that both, the district judge and the High Court had dismissed the appellants first appeal and the second appeal respectively even while their criminal appeal against the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence was pending before the High Court. As a matter of fact, even on May 5, 2003 when this Court granted special leave for filing the present appeal, the appellants criminal appeal was pending before the High Court.

(3.) In order to get the position clarified, we called for a report from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The report is received and it is now on the record of the case.