IN THE HI 108 Hamir Kaur & Nirmal Singh @ CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, Court against whereby the compensation judgment and appellants/pla learned lower appellants bef Singh. Plaintiff 2. status before and the contes E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA r & Another Vs. gh @ Kal & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advoc Mr. Praagbir S. Dhindsa, Ad Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** PTA, J. The plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are inst the concurrent findings of the suit of the plaintiffs for tion has been dismissed by the and decree dated 13.09.1988; an /plaintiffs No.1 & 2 thereagainst ower Appellate Court vide judgm before this Court are the widow an intiff No.3 was the father of decease The parties shall hereinaft ore the learned trial Court i.e. the ntesting respondents No.1 to 3 as t D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-27-1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ate dvocate with , Advocate cate are in second appeal before this of the learned Courts below or recovery of Rs.1 lakh as the learned trial Court vide and the appeal filed by the nst has been dismissed by the dgment dated 02.09.1992. The w and daughter of deceased-Gej eased-Gej Singh. inafter be referred to as per their he appellants as the ‘plaintiffs’, as the ‘defendants’. 12 eir ’, SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. the suit of defendants/re sentenced to 27.05.1982 re Police Station learned Addi conviction of deceased-Gej upon by the d recovered fro learned Courts to the plaintiff 4. no error what below. It is su conviction dat No.3 of 1983 the defendan 31.05.1983, a of the defenda by the plaintif Appeal (Crimi Learned counsel for the pla of the plaintiffs has been /respondents no.1 to 3 herein, to death, by the learned trial C 2 registered under Sections 302/3 tion Bhadson vide judgment date dditional Sessions Judge, Patiala. of the defendants was based on t Gej Singh and Baljinder Singh were he defendant No.1. As per the Ballis from the spot were fired from G ourts below are in patent error in no intiffs No.1 & 2. Learned counsel for the de hatsoever in the judgments and d is submitted that the defendants dated 24.04.1983 before this Cour 83 in the Criminal Appeal No.373 o dants was set aside by this C , and the defendants stood acqui endants was upheld up to the Supre intiffs against judgment dated 31.0 riminal) No.2782 & 2854 of 1983 e plaintiffs No.1 & 2 contends that n wrongly dismissed as the had been duly convicted and al Court in the FIR No.76 dated 2/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act at dated 24.04.1983 passed by the la. It is submitted that the said on the categoric findings that the were killed when they were fired allistic Report, even the cartridges m Gun No.5015-80. As such, the in not awarding the compensation e defendants submits that there is nd decrees of the learned Courts nts had challenged the order of Court by way of murder reference 73 of 1983; and the conviction of is Court, vide judgment dated cquitted. Thereafter, the acquittal upreme Court; as the appeal filed 31.05.1983 vide Special Leave to 83 titled as “State of Punjab Vs. 12 at he nd ed at he aid he ed es he ion is rts of ce of ed tal led to Vs. SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Nirmal Singh & order dated 1 defendants ha question or oc 5. submission on murder has to it has to be es present case, defendants ha 6. 7. perused the ca 8. about 6:30 pm Singh were w armed with d 3/Joginder Si furtherance o whereupon de further the st from defendan and Baljinder gh & Others”, was dismissed by the ed 16.04.1984. It is contended th s has been upheld up to the Hon’b r occasion of any compensation bei Learned counsel for the pl n on behalf of the defendants to su s to be proven on probabilities and e established beyond reasonable do ase, the evidence on record shows s has been proven on probabilities. No other argument is raise I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. It is the case of the plain 0 pm, Gej Singh s/o Puran Singh re working in their fields when de th double barrel short gun along r Singh and Hardial Singh, res ce of common intention to kill Ge n defendant No.1 shot dead Gej Sin e story of the plaintiffs that Hardi ndant No.1 and fired one shot each der Singh after which the defenda y the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide d that once the acquittal of the on’ble Supreme Court, there is no being payable to the plaintiffs. e plaintiffs No.1 & 2 counters this o submit that in civil proceedings, and not like a criminal trial where e doubt. It is submitted that in the ows that murder on part of the ies. aised on behalf of the parties. counsel for the parties and plaintiffs that on 27.05.1982 at gh and Baljinder Singh s/o Gej defendant No.1/Nirmal Singh long with defendants No.2 and respectively, came there in l Gej Singh and Baljinder Singh; j Singh and Baljinder Singh. It is ardial Singh then took the gun each on the person of Gej Singh ndants left the spot by firing in 12 ide he no his gs, re he he SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the air and ra matter. The sa s/o Gej Singh the place of in s/o Puran Sin have been pr Singh and Balj Singh in respe the date of oc 9. allegations ma and stated tha had been false 10. made in the w 11. parties, frame d raising voices to kill the person w e said incident is stated to have be ngh and Piara Singh s/o Bant Singh of incident just 2-3 minutes prior to Singh and Gurnam Singh s/o Arja present there. The alleged motiv Baljinder Singh was that the defend spect of a piece of land which was f occurrence. Upon notice, the defendan s made in the plaint. They even den that Gej Singh was a chronic litiga falsely implicated in the matter. The plaintiffs filed replica e written statement, and reiterating The learned trial Court on amed following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are the of deceased Gej Singh and mothe deceased Baljinder Singh alias Gud 2. Whether defendants killed Baljinder Singh @ Guddu? OPP. 3. Are the plaintiffs entitled compensation from the defendant 4. Is this suit not maintainable? OP on who would go to report the e been witnessed by Gian Singh ingh who had allegedly reached r to the shooting. Harbant Singh Arjan Singh were also stated to otive behind the killing of Gej fendants had a dispute with Gej was purchased 7-8 years prior to ndants appeared and denied the denied knowing Baljinder Singh; litigant; and that the defendants lication denying the averments ating those made in the plaint. on the basis of pleadings of the the widow, daughter and father other, sister and grand-father of s Guddu, respectively? OPP illed deceased Gej Singh and led to recover damages and dants? If so what Account? OPP e? OPD. 12 SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. plaintiffs and plaintiffs and dismissed. 13. behalf of the place of incide gun no.5015 by PW5/Gian PW7/Piara Sin Singh and PW8 14. the plaintiffs, unable to expl submission of date and time FIR (Ex.P2) is s pm as per DD before the M hour, but as p is shown to be was no explan 5. Relief.” Issues No.1 and 4 were and against the defendants; and iss and in favour of the defendants Primarily a two-fold argu the plaintiffs: a) that the cartridges cident matched with those fired by 15-80; and b) that the incident in q Gian Singh s/o Gej Singh along Singh s/o Bant Singh, as also PW PW8/Gurnam Singh s/o Arjan Singh Before dealing with the ar iffs, it is firstly relevant to note th explain as to why there was delay i n of Special Report to the learned time of occurrence are 27.05.1982 ) is stated to have been registered o DDR No.26 (Ex.P3). However, as e Magistrate was not produced im as per the SDJM Nabha the time of o be 5:15 am on 28.05.1982 throug planation on record as to why there ere decided in favour of the d issues No.2 and 3 against the ants. Resultantly the suit was argument has been raised on dges recovered from the alleged d by the gun in question i.e. the in question had been witnessed ong with independent witness PW6/Harbant Singh s/o Puran ingh. e arguments raised on behalf of te that the plaintiffs have been lay in registration of the FIR; and rned Magistrate. Admittedly the 982 at about 6:30 pm; whereas ed on 27.05.1982 at about 10:05 r, as per the record the report immediately/or within half an e of receipt of the Special Report rough Constable Hans Raj. There here was delay of several hours, 12 SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in handing o Constable Ha Magistrate ha correctly conc registered aft embellishmen therefore not 15. recovered cart be discarded a cartridges we Recovery Mem Recovery Mem No.5015-80 defendant No on 27.05.1982 the same were 30.05.1982 fro the said cartri thereafter on Courts below Ballistic Repor gun No.5015 g over the Special Report to th Hans Raj who had handed over e has not been examined. The learn concluded that from the above it w after much delay leading to the ment, concoction of story; and ropin not be ruled out. As regards the argument cartridges match with the gun in qu ed as, as per the Ballistic Report (E were taken into police possess Memo (Ex.P16). However, as per E Memo of the gun, according to w was taken into police possession No.1 only on 30.05.1982. Moreov 1982 were not immediately sent fo were sent for Ballistic Examination 2 from defendant No.1. What falsifi artridges and gun were sent to the on 22.06.1982. Therefore, for the low have correctly held that no w eport (Ex.P31) to the effect that th 015-80. It has been correctly obse the Magistrate. Even further over the Special Report to the arned Courts below accordingly, it was clear that FIR had been the conclusion that there was roping of innocent persons could ent of the plaintiffs that the in question, the same is liable to rt (Ex.P31) admittedly the empty session on 27.05.1982 as per er Ex.P19, which is the copy of o which the 12 bore DBBL gun ssion by ASI Kamikar Singh from reover, the cartridges recovered nt for Ballistic Examination; nor ion even after recovery of gun on alsified the plaintiffs’ case is that the Ballistic Expert one month the above reasons, the learned no weight can be given to the t the cartridges were fired from bserved by the learned Courts 12 SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document below that ha of gun from d the submission 16. also been una purchased by after the date defendant No. the place of o No.1 was con 24.04.1983 by purchased gun 17. incident was w entire evidenc presence of P view of the fo of the ld. Trial t had the cartridges been sent for e m defendant No.1 then some weig ssion of learned counsel for the plai In this regard, Learned co unable to deny that as per the rec by defendant No.3 on 28.05.1982 date of occurrence on 27.05.1982 No.3 from place of duty would not of occurrence. Thus, the sole grou convicted by the learned trial C 3 by the learned Additional Sessio gun was used to commit the crime, The second argument of as witnessed by PW5 to PW8. How dence in this regard, the learned C of PW5 and PW7 at the place of o e following findings as contained in Trial Court: - “27. P.W.5 is Gian Singh. He is a His version is that on the day of o his village Moongo but the bus to at 5.15 P.M. and on that account drop him at his village on his scoo parked the scooter at the tubewe towards Gej Sangh and Baljinde for examination before recovery weight could have been given to plaintiffs. d counsel for the plaintiffs has record the gun in question was 982 for Rs.2,150/-; i.e. one day 982. Further, mere absence of not imply that he was present at ground on which the defendant ial Court vide judgment dated essions Judge, Patiala, that the ime, stands disproved. t of the plaintiffs is that the However, upon appraisal of the ed Courts below had found the of occurrence to be doubtful in d in judgment dated 13.09.1988 is a practising lawyer at Nabha. of occurrence he left Nabha for us to his village had already left ount he requested Piara Singh to scooter and that they went and bewell and started going on foot ljinder Singh and then saw the 12 SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fa occurrence. From the statement he reached bus stand Nabha for after 5.15 P.M. when the bu statement of P.W.5 stands belied stated that he reached bus stand met Gian Singh at the bus stand. that he and Gian Singh left bus st scooter within about ten minute P.W.5 that the bus had already reached bus stand. Rather this leaving the bus and reaching of P but a made-up story. Piara Singh was also running liquor vend at v occurrence, Dhingi is at a distanc falls on the way to the village of village is at a distance of 10 K.M whereas village Moongo is on n distance of 20 K.M. He further ad bus service of half an hour interva to his village through the link purchase Fan Belt and had purc also some mobile oil. Apart from person. PW5 says that Piara Sin scooter to his village Moongo. P. to lend his scooter to him. P.W. Singh did not express his desire to could deliver the articles in his ho ask Piara Singh to go through hi then to lend his scooter from his v to reach his village. Piara Singh h Hari. Piara Singh stated that his v ent of P.W.5 it can be said that for going to his village Moongo bus had left. Whereas this elied by Piara Singh P.W.7 who tand at about 5.00 P.M. and he and. It is further in his statement us stand, Nabha for Moongo on nutes. This belies the version of eady left at 5.15 P.M. when he this indicates that the story of of P.W.5 at bus stand is nothing ingh is resident of Ladha Hari. He at village Dhingi on the day of stance of 6 KM from Nabha and f P.W.7. P.W. 7 stated that his K.M. on Nabha-Malerkotla road n northern side from Nabha at a er admitted that there is regular erval on main road which Linked link road, Piara Singh had to purchased it for his tractor and rom this Puran Singh was a busy a Singh gave lift to him on his o. P.W.5 did not ask Piara Singh P.W.5 further stated that Piara ire to go via his village so that he is house. Similarly PW.5 did not h his (Piara Singh’s) village and his village in order to enable him gh had to go to his village Ladha his village is on the northern side 12 SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18. entire facts a analysed by th the same as, friends; yet h presence at t conclusion tha credence to th 19. PW5 to PW8 defendants. of Nabha. It is further in his sta route from his village to Moongo In these circumstances, it is clea travel 35/40 K.M. in order to reac he been to his village direct from K.M. There is no evidence that Gia related to each other or that the not sound to reason that under s agreed to give lift to Gian Singh about 30 K.M. extra. From the submission of the Ld. counsel fo story of giving lift to Gian Sing created merely to show the prese Singh at the place of occurrence c any force. In other words, this con It is my view that in reachi ts and evidence have been very by the learned Courts below. I am i , it is not denied that Piara Singh et he has gone so much out of his at the place of occurrence. This that Gian Singh is an independen to the story put forth by the plaintiff It has further been argue PW8 have established that murd s. In this regard it is pertinent tha s statement that there is direct ongo which is about 10/15 K.M. s clear that Piara Singh had to reach his village Ladha Hari. Had from Nabha he had to cover 10 t Gian Singh and Piara Singh are t they are close friends. It does der such a situation Piara Singh ingh or he could agree to travel the evidence on this point, the sel for the defendants that the Singh by Piara Singh has been resence of Gian Singh and Piara nce cannot be said to be without s contention is tenable one.” aching the above conclusion, the very minutely considered and am in complete agreement with ngh and Gian Singh are not close f his way, in order to effect his is would lead to the inevitable ndent witness procured to lend intiffs. rgued that all of the witnesses urder was committed by the that PW5 Gian Singh is son of 12 SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document deceased Ge Singh/brother Singh. As alre brought by th reasons as m seems to be below, the sto and it is found the time of oc repetition, ref of the judgme (page 51 of th 27 of the judg it has been at defendants is land in dispute the occurrenc double-edged were falsely im mere fact that defendants kil Gej Singh and is a practising ther of Gej Singh; and PW8 is Gu already noticed above, PW7/Piara y the plaintiffs as an independen s mentioned above, his presence be doubtful. Thus, by concurrent story put forth by PW5 to PW8 ha ound that they were not present a f occurrence. In this regard, for the reference may also be made to fin gment dated 02.09.1992 of the lea of the paper book) concurring with judgment of the learned trial Court d n attributed by the plaintiffs that t s is the dispute in respect of land pute was purchased by the parties 7 rence. Furthermore, the said land ged sword inasmuch as it could w ly implicated by the plaintiffs due to that the deceased were killed in th s killed them. Page 10 of 12 sing lawyer; PW6 is Harbant s Gurnam Singh/brother of Gej iara Singh seems to have been dent witness however, for the nce at the place of occurrence ent findings of both the Courts has been found to be doubtful, nt at the place of occurrence at r the sake of brevity and without o findings as recorded in Para 14 learned lower Appellate Court with the above-reproduced Para urt dated 13.09.1988. Moreover, at the motive assignable to the land. However, admittedly, this ties 7-8 years prior to the date of nd dispute can be said to be a ld well be that the defendants ue to this land dispute itself. The n the field, is no ground that the 12 SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20. implicated in t the learned tri fir f 21. that gun was for three day Baljinder Singh 22. reliance has be alleged to hav PW17/Inder S The fact that the defe in the matter is also fortified by t d trial court in its judgment dated 1 “32. It is in evidence that Baljind was hit by two shots by Nirmal Si that Joginder Singh and Nirmal bodies of Gej Singh and Baljind Singh took the gun and fired one Singh and one shot on the perso this fact in the evidence is unbelie as to why Nirmal Singh who was fire more shots upon Gej Singh could be the necessity for Hardia from Nirmal Singh and fire shot and Baljinder Singh who had falle inferred that this story has been involvement of Hardial Singh. M Singh does not find mention in Kamikar Singh regarding his prese Merely because on the bas as purchased by defendant No.3 o days, the same cannot prove the ingh. Further, a perusal of the as been placed by the plaintiffs upon have been made by them to Inde er Singh that defendants confesse defendants have been falsely by the following observations of ed 13.09.1988: – aljinder Singh fall down after he al Singh. It is further in evidence mal Singh started touching the ljinder Singh and then Hardial d one shot on the person of Gej person of Baljinder Singh. Again believable. There was no reason was holding the gun could not ingh and Baljinder Singh. What ardial Singh to get hold the gun shot on the person of Gej Singh allen down. From this it can be been manufactured to show the h. Moreover, the name of Piara n in the inquest report by ASI presence.” basis of corroborative evidence .3 or that he remained on leave the murders of Gej Singh and the record shows that much upon the confessional statement Inder Singh/PW17. The story of fessed to him has been rightly 12 SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document disbelieved as or the plaintif would confess the defendant had stated tha they had told Baljinder Sing defendants or there was no Inder Singh. regarding his appeared in t years. 23. up to the Hon out to make th 24. reasoned judg appeal is dism 25. 27.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo d as admittedly Inder Singh has no intiffs and as such, there is no reaso fess to him. As per the testimony of dants had allegedly made the extr that he knew the defendants for t told him that they committed the Singh. However, admittedly, PW17 s or any dealings with them for th no occasion for the defendants to h. What is even more important is his alleged meeting with the de in the witness box on 28.04.1988 Last but not the least, the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, no ke them liable to pay/ grant compen I find no ground is made judgments of the ld. Courts below. ismissed. Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No no relation with the defendants reason as to why the defendants y of Inder Singh/PW17 to whom extra-judicial confession, PW17 for the last 10-15 years and that the murders of Gej Singh and W17 had no relation with the r the past many years. As such, s to suddenly go and confess to nt is that PW17 did not disclose defendants to anyone till he 988 i.e. for a period of about 6 the defendants stand acquitted , no ground whatsoever is made pensation to the plaintiffs. ade out to interfere in the well- w. In view of the above, present if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 12 SUNENA 2025.02.03 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document