High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 Kartar Singh & gh & Others Baldev Kaur & ur & Others RSA-2710-2016(O&M) Date of decision: 08.04.2025 Vs. ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vikas, Advocate for cate Mr. Amit Khatkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advo for the respondents. Advocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** The defendants are in second a nt nd appeal against the concurrent judgments an s and decrees of the Courts below he low whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/resp respondents No.1 to 6 herein, as for recovery of Rs.5 lakh as compensation tion/damages payable by he appellants the ing for committing actionable wr wrong, unlawful and tortuous act Sh. act by committing murder of Sh. Sohna Singh so gh son of Jit Singh, has been decreed reed by both the Courts below. 2. The plaintiffs are the widow and na and 5 children of deceased Sohna Singh. Vide t e the impugned judgments and rts nd decrees, the learned Courts below had de d decreed the suit of the plaintiffs led tiffs on the basis of evidence led before it; in pa in particular the evidence of PW3 Dr ed 3 Dr. Beant Singh who had proved on record the the attested copy of Post-Morte he ortem Report (Ex.PW3/B) of the SUNENA 2025.04.09 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) deceased Sohn Sohna Singh. As per the said Post- Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) ath -Mortem Report, cause of death of Sohna Singh ingh was due to heart attack; and t at nd the viscera report showed that cause of death eath was due to “...myocardial infra ted infraction which was precipitated by spleen rupt rupture and clotted blood present he esent in abdominal cavity...”. The plaintiffs had d ad duly proven their case that the d ies he defendants had caused injuries upon Sohna Si na Singh which he could not bear an py ar and had died on the spot. Copy of FIR was pla placed on record. The income of t as of the deceased Sohna Singh was also proven to n to be Rs.3,60,000/- per annum. It ed . It was proved that the deceased was main bre breadwinner of the family and du oss due to his death, economic loss had been cau caused to the family. According as dingly, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with ith costs by both the Courts below led elow; and they were held entitled to recovery o ry of Rs.5 lakh as compensation f ual on from the defendants in equal share. 3. The defendants had filed the pre of present appeal in which Notice of Motion was i as issued vide order dated 30.05 ch 0.05.2016 by Co-ordinate Bench which reads as ds as follows: - “Learned counsel for the appellan till ellant contends that the trial is still pending, therefore the suit for the for damages on account of the same very incident could not be m be maintainable. Notice of motion for 9.9.2016. In the meantime, operation of t nd of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed till the ll the next date of hearing.” SUNENA 2025.04.09 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Thereafter, the matter has been Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) he been adjourned primarily on the 4. request of lea f learned counsel for the appellants ate lants/defendants. On the last date of hearing i.e. i.e. 08.01.2025, following order wa r was passed: - “It is submitted by learned counse the unsel for the respondents that the sole argument made by the appe the appellants before this Court at the time of issuance of notice the ice of motion was that the respondent/plaintiff could not ha es t have filed the suit for damages as the trial in respect of the in till he incident in question was still pending. Learned counsel iffs for the respondents/plaintiffs for submits that the appellants now 17 now stand convicted on 03.6.2017 in FIR No.85 dated 18.7.2010, re 02, 0, registered under Sections 302, 323 and 450 IPC, at Police Sta gly Station Maur. It is accordingly contended that the present a red nt appeal has been rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the appella no pellants submits that he has no instructions in this regard and get and seeks some time to get necessary instructions. Adjourned to 08.04.2025.” 5. Today, learned counsel for th as r the respondents/plaintiffs has handed over i ver in Court a copy of judgment da he t dated 03.06.2017 passed by the learned Addit dditional Sessions Judge, Bathinda rd, inda, which is taken on record, whereby the the appellants stand convicted in 10 in FIR No.85 dated 18.07.2010 registered und under Sections 302, 323 and 450 IP nd 50 IPC at Police Station Maur; and convicts are se re sentenced to undergo imprisonm onment as follows:- SUNENA 2025.04.09 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) the Offence Mand f Name of accused Sin Singh, Kartar r Singh Harmander Si ander, @ Singh Jaswinder Si Singh, @ Jagga Sin Singh Balwinder Si Ram @ Billa, R arshan Singh, Darsh Balkar Singh and Ba Singh 302 IPC 450 IPC 323 IPC ishment Punishm arded awarde h accused Each a is to tenced sentenc ergo rigorous undergo risonment for impriso life Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) Fine ch Rs.20,000/- each to and in default to further undergo go ths RI for six months each Each sentenc undergo seven y h accused tenced ergo RI en years is to for Each a sentenc for six m h accused is tenced to RI six months ch Rs.10,000/- each and in default of of ine payment of fine to undergo RI for for ths three months each ------ 6. Ld. Counsel for the appe he ppellants is unable to deny the above fact. In
Decision
t. In view of the above admitted po ut d position, no ground is made out to interfere re in the concurrent judgments rts ts and decrees of the ld. Courts below. 7. 8. 08.04.2025 Sunena The present appeal is accor ccordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s) if an any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.04.09 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)