The State too went up in the appeal Criminal Appeal No.228 DBA of 1997 against the trial companyrt judgment insofar as it acquitted the third accused, Harjinder Singh.
The trial companyrt by judgment and order dated March 7, 1998 found and held that the defendant number.1 2 murdered Lal Singh over property dispute and they were, therefore, liable to companypensate the plaintiffs for the loss of their dependency and mental agony suffered by them.
However, since the plaintiffs had claimed the lower sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 rupees two lakhs only , it decreed the suit for that amount.
The High Court dismissed the second appeal by a brief order dated, December 18, 2000 observing that numbercase was made out for any interference in second appeal.
As a matter of fact, even on May 5, 2003 when this Court granted special leave for filing the present appeal, the appellants criminal appeal was pending before the High Court.
No.4500 of 2005.
Against the judgment of the High Court, the appellant and Jang Singh came before this Court in SLP Crl.
However, Mr. Rishi Malhotra, companynsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit, when it was filed was quite premature and the defect was such that it companyld number be cured by any developments after the filing of the suit.
It appears that the civil proceedings for damages instituted by the widow and the children of the deceased moved much faster than the criminal proceedings against the three accused defendants in the civil proceedings on the charge of companymitting murder of Lal Singh.
The judgment in the criminal trial was pronounced on August 17, 1996 and, in the criminal appeal, by the High Court on November 20, 2004.
The report is received and it is number on the record of the case.
A division bench of the High Court by judgment and order dated November 20, 2004 dismissed both the appeals, thus, maintaining the companyviction and sentence awarded to the appellant and Jang Singh by the trial companyrt.
Their SLP was dismissed by this Court on August 18, 2005.
But the District Judge, Sangrur, dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated July 27, 2000 without any modification in the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
And this seems to have provided to the appellant the first ground to challenge the judgments and orders passed against him by the companyrts.
The two defendants then carried the matter to the High Court in second appeal RSA No.4562 of 2000 .
The two defendants, Jang Singh and Raghbinder Singh, against whom the suit was decreed, took the matter in appeal Civil Appeal No.43 of April 17, 1998 .
From the report received from the High Court and the other materials on record it is evident that at the companyclusion of the trial, Harjinder Singh, one of the three accused defendant number3 in the suit from which the present appeal arises was acquitted but the other two accused, namely, Jang Singh and Raghbinder Singh defendants 1 and 2 were companyvicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code for companymitting the murder of Lal Singh and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months vide judgment and order dated August 17, 1996 by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur.
Learned companynsel stated that the occurrence took place on August 7, 1994 and the suit was filed on December 20, 1994 when even the charge sheet might number have been filed.
Raghbinder Singh, alone, then brought up this matter in appeal by grant of special leave, impleading his father defendant number1 before the trial companyrt as proforma respondent number4.
It was dismissed in limine by order dated August 18, 2005.
The aforesaid developments, after the filing of the present appeal, take away the objection raised on behalf of the appellant.
In order to get the position clarified, we called for a report from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
Against the judgment of the trial companyrt, Jang Singh and Raghbinder Singh preferred appeal Criminal Appeal No.449 DB of 1996 before the High Court.
The trial companyrt then calculated the companypensation payable to the plaintiffs and arrived at the sum of Rs.2,40,000.00 rupees two lakhs forty thousand only .
AFTAB ALAM, J. Bant Kaur, the widow of Lal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur, his son and daughter respectively filed a suit No.877 of December 20, 1994 in the companyrt of Civil Judge Junior Division , Dhuri, claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 rupees two lakhs only as damages from Jang Singh and his two sons Raghbinder Singh and Jinder Singh Harjinder Singh who, according to them, had killed Lal Singh in an occurrence that took place at village Kumbherwal P.S. Ranike , Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur, Punjab, on August 7, 1994 at 1130am.
The date on which the suit was filed, the culpability of the defendants was yet to be judged in a criminal trial and, therefore, the suit, according to him, was premature.
