Aggrieved by the concurrent finding against the defendants in O.S. No.362 of 1998, who suffered decree for damages to the tune of `14,250/-, they have come up in revision. 2. On 15.10.1997 at about 8 a.m an incident occurred and in which the plaintiff claims that he was injured by the act committed by the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, he was pulling of the field bund in Rs.98/9 and 98/10, when the defendants assaulted him using weapons and caused serious injuries to him. In the light of the above incident, he laid the suit for damages.
3. The defendants resisted the suit. The incident as such was not disputed, but the case of the defendants was that the incident did not take place as alleged by the plaintiff. According to them, the incident has taken place inside the property of the defendants and that defendants had to act when the plaintiff being the aggressor tried to meddle with the property belonging to the defendants and he did not heed to the demands of the defendants.
4. On the above of pleadings, issues were raised and parties went to trial. The evidence consists of testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A8 series from the side of plaintiff. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1. Both the courts below on an independent appreciation of the evidence chose to accept the version given by the plaintiff and found want of evidence in support of the narration of incident given by the defendants and a decree was passed by the trial court which has confirmed in appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the court below was not justified in blindly accepting the version given by P.Ws.1 and 2 and in finding against the defendants. According to the learned counsel, in the criminal case, the accused were acquitted and that would show that the incident spoken to by the plaintiff is not true. It is also significant to notice, according to the learned counsel that, even though the plaintiff had a case that there was an eye witness to the incident, he was conveniently kept away from the box and that would be sufficient to hold against the plaintiff. It is also significant to notice, according to the learned counsel, that the doctor, who is alleged to have examined the plaintiff when he was taken to hospital soon after the incident, was also not examined. These infirmities ought to have been considered by the court below and found that there was absolute want of evidence to show that the plaintiff had suffered any injury due to the act committed by the first defendant or defendants.
6. One must remember that the suit is one for damages and the case is to be decided on preponderance of probability and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt as is applicable in a criminal cases.
7. Both the courts below have noticed that the incident is admitted i.e., on 15.10.1997 at about 8 a.m. there was a wordy altercation between the plaintiff and the defendants followed by a scuffle. The plaintiff had a case that he was attacked by the first defendant and injuries were caused to him. The case of the defendants was that the plaintiff had trespassed into their property and meddled with the property, which they tried to prevent and in the melee the incident occurred.
8. Plaintiff had examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 i.e., himself and his wife P.W.2. Even though, P.W.2 in chief examination claimed to have seen the incident, in cross examination she would say that, she came to the spot hearing the cries of P.W.1 and thereby indicating that she could not have seen incident at all. Assume it to be so. But the fact remains that she heard the cries of her husband and when she reached the place, she found her husband injured.
9. Plaintiff produced several documents to establish his version of incident. The first information report in crime No.270/97, the wound certificate, final report filed by SHO, and discharge summary were produced.
10. In the light of the above documents, the claim of the plaintiff that he had suffered injuries cannot be disputed. The question is whether the version given by the defendants that the plaintiff was the aggressor and the defendants had acted and intercepted in defence can be accepted on the basis of the evidence adduced by the defendants.
11. From the side of the defendants, the first defendant alone was examined. As rightly noticed by the courts below, even though D.W.1 has a case that he was attacked first and he suffered injuries, no medical certificate was produced nor was the doctor who claimed to have treated him examined. Further the claim of the defendants was that the incident had taken place in their property. If that be so, the best piece of evidence the defendant could have produced is the scene mahazar prepared by the police.
12. Except for the interested testimony of D.W.1, there is no evidence to show that the version given by D.W.1 is true. It was the above facts which had persuaded the courts below to come to the conclusion that on preponderance of probability the evidence put forward by the plaintiff is more probable. But as already noticed, the fact that the plaintiff had suffered injuries cannot be disputed. It is understood that in the final report filed by the Police offence under Section 326 of CPC is also shown. As regards the quantum of damages granted, it seems to be fair.
13. The result is that, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings of the courts below warranting interference.
In the result, there is no merit in this revision petition, and it is liable to be dismissed. I do so.
AMV/ Sd/-
(P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE)