The provisions of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 are supplemental in addition to the rights of the plaintiff to claim damages under the ordinary civil law.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1997 dated 17-3-1998.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit claiming damages of Rs. one lac on the ground that her husband was murdered by the defendants-appellants. The trial Court on the basis of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the husband of the plaintiff was murdered by the defendants and that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. one lac as compensation by his order dated 18-3-1997. Against the said judgment and decree both the defendants preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, who by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal of the second defendant and confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court as against the Ist defendant, who is the appellant herein.

3. There is no dispute that Malkiat Singh husband of the plaintiff was assaulted by the defendants on the night of 14-3-1984 and he died on 15-3-1984 in the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and both the defendants were prosecuted for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and they were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, but the Apex Court acquitted 2nd defendant while maintaining the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the Ist defendant, who is the appellant herein vide its judgment dated 11-8-1988.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming compensation and damages against both the accused on the ground that they were responsible for causing the death of her husband.

5. Both the Courts concurrently found that it is the appellant who fired a gun shot at the deceased as a result of which the husband of the plaintiff died. On the basis of the evidence adduced before the Courts below it was held that the appellant herein was responsible for the death of the deceased. That being a pure finding of fact, this Court in the Second Appeal will not re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion.

6. It is no doubt true that the reason in the judgment of the Criminal Court is not binding on the Civil Court, but the Civil Court came to an independent conclusion that on the basis of evidence on record, the death of the husband of the plaintiff was homicidal and that the Ist defendant-appellant killed him. This finding has been arrived at on a proper appreciation of evidence on record.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also not been able to show how the finding arrived at by the Courts below on the basis of evidence is incorrect. I, therefore, confirm the said finding.

8. The only point that was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the suit is barred by time in view of Art. 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which concerns a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 . Under the said article, the suit claiming compensation under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is to be filed within two years from the date of death of the person killed. According to him, the suit claiming compensation for the death of the husband of the plaintiff is one under the Fatal Accidents Act and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff beyond the period of two years is liable to be dismissed.

9. No doubt an issue was framed by the trial Court whether the suit is not within time. The trial Court categorically stated that the said issue has not been pressed by the learned Counsel for the defendants. During the course of arguments, the same was also not raised by the appellant in the lower Appellate Court. Since the said issue has been given up by the defendants, it is not open to the appellant to raise the same. Apart from that I am of the opinion that the provisions of The Indian Fatal Accidents Act are not applicable to the present case as the plaintiff has not brought any action under the Fatal Accidents Act. It is a suit claiming damages for the intentional killing