Accordingly, he sentenced Suba Singh to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/ and in default, to rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years.
On November 16, 1991, respondent number1 filed a suit on behalf of herself and on behalf of her minor daughter, who was at that time about 4 5 years old, against the defendants appellants claiming damages for the death of her husband and the father of the young child.
The appellants took the matter in second appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order, dated October 3, 2002, holding that it did number raise any substantial question of law.
By the judgment and order dated November 4, 2003, the appeal of Shingara Singh was allowed and he was acquitted of all the charges and the companyviction of Suba Singh was companyverted from one under section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Penal Code.
In other words, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment passed by the trial companyrt, though giving Suba Singh a reduced sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
In the plaint, it was alleged that Suba Singh and his son Shingara Singh had companymitted the murder of Surinder Singh.
During the pendency of the suit, the defendants were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in Sessions Trial No.46 of 1991, charged variously of offences under sections 302, 307, 302/34, 307/34 IPC and under section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Now, companying back to the present appeal, the judgments of the High Court and the companyrts below were assailed by the companynsel for the appellants on the plea of double jeopardy.
While the suit was pending before the trial companyrt, the widow of Surinder Singh plaintiff number1 got married to his younger brother in the year 1998 and from him, she has two children.
In an occurrence that took place on July 1, 1991, Surinder Singh died as a result of gun shot injuries.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his judgment and order dated March 6, 1992, acquitted Shingara Singh of all the charges leveled against him but found Suba Singh guilty of the offence under section 304 Part I, holding that he had exceeded his right of private defence.
At the time of death, the age of Surinder Singh was about 25 years.
Suba Singh was found guilty and companyvicted under sections 302/34, 307/34 of the Penal Code.
Shingara Singh was also found guilty of the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act.
In that situation Suba Singh fired a shot and a stray pellet hit Surinder Singh who was sitting on the wall, resulting in his death.
The appellants filed an appeal Civil Appeal No.191/1999 before the District Judge, The District Judge partly allowed the appeal and by judgment dated March 7, 2002 reduced the amount of companypensation from rupees three lakhs to rupees two lakhs, thirty two thousand seven hundred, leaving the rate of interest unchanged.
The matter was taken to the High Court in appeals preferred both by the State and by Suba Singh besides a revision preferred by the informant Balbir Singh, the father of the deceased.
It was alleged that Surinder Singh claimed the companymon wall between their houses and at the time of the occurrence he was throwing brickbats at the defendants causing injuries to them.
Both, Suba Singh and Shingara Singh were sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fines with default clauses.
Shingara Singh came to the place of occurrence armed with the licensed gun of his father and urged by him, he fired a shot killing Surinder Singh on the spot.
An F.I.R number166 was lodged by his father Balbir Singh, under sections 302/307/ 34 of the Penal Code and section 25/27 of the Arms Act in which the two appellants, Suba Singh and Shingara Singh, father and son respectively, were named as accused.
Hence, the claim for companypensation by way of damages of rupees three lakhs from the defendants.
As a professional driver, he was in private service of certain persons named in the plaint.
It was stated that after the death of Surinder Singh, the plaintiffs did number have any source of income to maintain themselves.
The matter is number brought before this Court by grant of special leave.
The High Court by a companymon judgment and order allowed the appeal filed by the State and held Shingara Singh guilty of the offence under section 302 and 307 of the Penal Code.
The defendants companytested the suit questioning its maintainability.
He was a peasant and a motor vehicle driver by vocation.
He also used to help his father in agricultural operations and his income from all the sources was about Rs.16,000/ per annum.
They denied the allegations made in the plaint and stated that they were in numberway responsible for causing the death of Surinder Singh.
To companyplete the facts it may be stated that shortly after leave was granted in the present appeal, the appellants criminal appeals against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court registered as Criminal Appeal Nos.682 683 of 1996 with Criminal Appeal Nos.1345 1347 of 2003 came to be heard by this Court.
AFTAB ALAM,J. This appeal by special leave arises from a suit for damages filed by the plaintiffs respondents, the widow and the minor daughter of one Surinder Singh, claiming a sum of rupees three lakhs as damages from the defendants appellants for causing the death of Surinder Singh by their wrongful act.
