CHARAT SINGH Vs. JASWANT KAUR ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant who was sued by the respondents and Mewa Singh for recovery of Rs. 36,000/- as compensation for causing the murder of Dalip Singh.

(2.) The case of the respondents and Mewa Singh was that on June 18, 1968, at 10.00 a.m. Dalip Singh was put to death by gunfire by Charat Singh appellant in the abadi of village Bhutiwala. The said murder was witnessed by Piara Singh, Gurjant Singh and Bhag Singh. Piara Singh carried the information about the said murder to Police Station, Muktsar, where First Information Report was recorded, as a result of which the appellant was arrested and prosecuted. He was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for causing the murder of Dalip Singh and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He carried appeal to the High Court, where his conviction and sentence were maintained. Smt. Jaswant Kaur is the mother of Dalip Singh and Smt. Angrez Kaur is his widow. Sewak Singh, Mewa Singh and Gurjant Singh are the sons and Smt. Parkash Kaur is the daughter of Dalip Singh. Alleging that Dalip Singh had been supporting them and had been providing Rs. 800/- per month for their maintenance and they had been deprived of the said support on account of the wrongful act committed by the appellant in causing the murder of Dalip Singh, they claimed damages which they assessed at Rs. 36,000/-, from him. The suit was contested by Charat Singh.

(3.) The facts, that Dalip Singh was murdered and the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life, were admitted. The other material allegations of the respondents and Mewa Singh were controverted and it was pleaded inter alia, that Dalip Singh had suffered some injury on his neck prior to the incident of his murder and was incapable of earning any income and he used to get his land cultivated by sharecroppers, and he was aged 40 years at the time of murder and had left land which had been inherited by the respondents, and so, they were not entitled to any damages and could not claim the same. Hence, the suit was tried on the following issues :-