Court affirms independent civil cause of action for compensation due to intentional homicide, dismissing limitation defense under Article 82 of the Limitation Act.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the compensation awarded to a mother for the intentional murder of her son, Gurpreet Singh, by dismissing the second appeal filed by the defendants. The case, Sarwan Singh @ Samma Singh and Others vs. Sukhraj Kaur and Others, revolved around a suit for damages amounting to Rs. 25 lakh filed by Sukhraj Kaur, the mother of the deceased.
The incident occurred on the night of December 8, 2012, when Gurpreet Singh was allegedly attacked and killed by a group of 11 individuals. Following the attack, an FIR was registered leading to the arrest of several defendants. The mother, who was dependent on her son, filed a civil suit for compensation on May 5, 2016, claiming mental agony and loss of support.
The trial court initially awarded Rs. 18,00,000 in compensation, which was later reduced to Rs.11,28,400 by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar. The defendants, who were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, challenged these decisions in the High Court. They contended that the suit was barred by the two-year limitation period under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, which applies to cases under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
Justice Nidhi Gupta, presiding over the case, dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the murder constituted an independent cause of action outside the scope of the Fatal Accidents Act. The court clarified that Article 82 pertains only to accidental or wrongful deaths due to neglect or default, not intentional homicides.
The judgment emphasized that the plaintiff's claim was independent of the criminal proceedings and was based on the intentional act of homicide, which established a separate right for civil compensation. The court also noted that the objection regarding limitation was not raised timely by the defendants in the lower courts, thus rendering it unavailable at this stage.
The High Court's decision underscores the legal distinction between claims arising from accidental deaths and those from intentional killings, providing clarity on the applicability of limitation statutes. This ruling reinforces the rights of dependents to seek civil redress for intentional acts of violence.
Bottom line:-
Compensation for intentional murder is not governed by Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies only to cases under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Intentional homicide creates an independent cause of action outside the scope of the Fatal Accidents Act.
Statutory provision(s):
Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 82), Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, Indian Penal Code (Sections 302, 364, 336, 452, 148, 149), Arms Act (Sections 25, 27).
Sarwan Singh @ Samma Singh v. Sukhraj Kaur, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2922757
