LAWS(P&H)-1990-12-131

NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. RANA SANGRAM SINGH

Decided On December 13, 1990
NIRANJAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
RANA SANGRAM SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurcharan Singh was murdered on 18.8.1973 in Basti Bhatianwali Ferozepur City. Niranjan Singh defendant-appellant, Harbans Singh and Gurcharan Singh alias Chana were accused of murder. Harbans Singh and Gurcharan Singh alias Chana were acquitted whereas Niranjan Singh was convicted by the trial Court and his sentence was confirmed upto the Supreme Court of India. Two sons namely Rana Sangram Singh and Sukhpal Singh, daughter Sat Pal Kaur, widow Surjit Kaur and Achhar Kaur mother of the deceased filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 50000/- as damages for the murder of Gurcharan Singh son of Dhara Singh against Niranjan Singh, the prime suspect.

(2.) The facts as stated in the plaint are that plaintiff-respondent used to live with the deceased in Basti Bhatianwali, Ferozepur City. Gurcharan Singh was aged about 45 years having good and robust health and had he not been murdered by the defendant-appellant, he would have lived till he attained the age of 80 years which is normally, a span of life of the members of the family to which the deceased belonged. On 18.8.1973 at about 8.30 p.m. Gurcharan Singh and Gurmukh Singh left after taking their meals for having a round to their fields. When they reached near the crossing of Basti Bhatianwali, Niranjan Singh defendant-appellant was seen coming from the opposite direction armed with Takwa and he was followed by his co-accused Harbans Singh and Gurcharan Singh alias Chana. Gurcharan Singh deceased was also having a Takua and Harbans Singh was armed with a pistol. Niranjan Singh raised a lalkara that Gurcharan Singh should be taught a lesson for diverting the rainy water to his fields. Gurcharan Singh and Harbans Singh also raised a lalkara that Gurcharan Singh deceased should not be spared alive. Thereafter Niranjan Singh defendant-appellant inflicted a blow with the blunt side of Takua on the left side of head of Gurcharan Singh deceased and thereafter gave another blow with blunt side of the Takua on the head of the deceased. Gurcharan Singh also gave a Takua blow with the blunt side on the head of Gurcharan Singh deceased. Gurcharan Singh fell on the ground. The eyewitnesses to the occurrence were P.W. 4 Amerjit Singh P.W. 3., Darbara Singh and P.W. 2 Gurmukh Singh. On raising alarm by them, the assailants left the spot and ran away towards the fields with their respective weapons. Gurcharan Singh was removed to the hospital in unconscious condition. Dr. B.B. Sharma, medico-legally examined and found three injuries on his person. Information was sent to the police. On arrival of the police, Gurcharan Singh was again examined but it was found that he was not in a fit condition to make a statement to the police. Gurmukh Singh made a statement which was recorded by Lachman Singh Inspector on the basis of which First Information Report under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was recorded on 19.8.1973 defendant-appellant was arrested by Major Singh Sub Inspector. Gurcharan Singh injured remained unconscious at Civil Hospital Ferozepur and was referred to Vijay Hospital Amritsar on 19.8.1973 but he died there on 24.8.1973 at 3.45 p.m. On receipt of information about the death of Gurcharan Singh, the offence was converted into Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. D.S. Bedi on 24.8.1973 at 9.15 p.m. who opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 1 on the left side of the head of the deceased which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

(3.) Plaintiff-respondents further alleged that Gurcharan Singh deceased was Lambardar and Municipal Commissioner and he was the bread-earner of the family. He owned three Killas of land and was about 45 years of age. The estimated loss of pecuniary benefits to the plaintiff-respondents from the income of the deceased during his expected span of life was put at Rs. 50,000/- which was claimed by the plaintiff-respondents in the present suit as damages by way of compensation.