BHAJAN SINGH Vs. TEJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal against whom the decree for the recovery of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation on account of the death of plaintiff respondents husband Santa Singh, has been passed.

(2.) On July 2, 1968, at about sun-set the said Santa Singh was alleged to have been murdered at his house by the defendants. They were challaned under Section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. Both of them were found guilty of the offence by the trial court and were convicted under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. In appeal, the conviction of Bhajan Singh, defendant, under Section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, was altered to the one under Section 304 Part) I, Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Sajjan Singh, the other defendant, was acquitted of the charge. It was alleged that the plaintiff was dependent on Santa Singh, deceased, who used to earn Rs. 600/- per month before his murder. She had no other source of income to maintain herself and that she had been deprived of her only source of income by the defendants who had caused the death of the said Santa Singh. Thus, she claimed a sum of Rs 50,000/- as the damages on account of the murder of her husband Santa Singh. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia on the plea that it was not they who had caused the death of the said Santa Singh, as alleged. He was an old and infirm person and as such he was not doing; nor was he capable of doing anything. The plaintiff got executed a will in favour of her brothers son Maghar Singh from Santa Singh. deceased, and, thus, she was benefited by the will in favour of the said Maghar Singh who was also her adopted son. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the defendants had committed the murder of Santa Singh? 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount on account of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to, and from whom?

(3.) Relief. Under issue No.1, the trial Court found that Bhajan Singh, defendant, alone had caused the death of Santa Singh, the husband of the plaintiff. Under issue No.2, it found that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,000/by way of damages from Bhajan Singh, defendant. Consequently her suit was decreed accordingly. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in appeal to this Court.3. The learned counsel for the appellant contested the finding of the trial Court under issue No.2 only, It was argued that it has been wrongly held by the trial Court that Santa Singh was of 60 years of age at the time of his death. According to the learned counsel, there was no satisfactory and cogent evidence to that effect. Besides, the evidence led on behalf of the defendants to the effect that Santa Singh, deceased, was 80 years of age at that time, has not been considered at all by the trial Court. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the multiplier of ten has been wrongly applied by the trial Court in computing the amount of compensation. It was also contended that during his life time, Santa Singh, deceased, had made a will in favour of Maghar Singh, a certified Copy of which was placed on the record of this case by way of additional evidence alongwith Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 786-Cl of 1975, wherein, according to the learned counsel, Santa Singh gave his age as 60 years on the date of the execution of the will which is dated October 5, 1961. Thus, contended the learned counsel, since Santa Singh died on July 2, 1968, his age must be about 68 years at the time of his death. The said civil miscellaneous application was ordered to be heard along with the main case.