Tag: #incident

-Report by Himanshu Sahu

FACTS

Vinod Kumar, the deceased, embarked on a train journey on June 12, 2017, from Shahdara to Faridabad aboard a local train. Tragically, while the train was travelling between Faridabad and Tughlaqabad Station, specifically at KM 1514/13-11 JNC Yard, the deceased fell from the train due to a sudden jerk and the push of fellow passengers. Regrettably, he lost his life on the spot. Additionally, the journey ticket and the deceased’s belongings, including his bag, were also lost during the incident. Subsequently, the claimant filed a case in the tribunal seeking compensation, but the judge did not favour the claimant. As a result, an appeal has been made to the court for further consideration and potential compensation.

APPELLANT\’S CONTENTION

The counsel representing the appellants argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider important factors, such as the contents of the final report by the Station House Officer (SHO) and the statements of witnesses. The SHO\’s report, along with the testimonies of witnesses, indicated that the death occurred due to a fall from the moving train. The appellants\’ counsel also emphasized that the mere absence of the journey ticket should not automatically lead to the dismissal of the compensation claim.
Furthermore, the testimony of a witness named Ramkeshwar Ram supported the appellants\’ case. Ramkeshwar Ram stated that the deceased had visited his brother-in-law before the incident and was carrying a bag of clothes. He had purchased a ticket for the deceased, who boarded the local train for Faridabad. This additional evidence strengthened the appellants\’ position in their pursuit of compensation.

RESPONDENT\’S CONTENTION

The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, defended the judgment and requested the dismissal of the appeal or support the decision of the tribunal.

JUDGMENT

The court reviewed whether the incident could be categorized as an \”untoward incident\” according to Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. As the deceased\’s body was discovered on the railway track during the train journey, the court determined that it did meet the criteria for an untoward incident. The court consider the final report provided by the Station House Officer (SHO). Consequently, the court recognized the deceased as a legitimate passenger and the incident as an untoward incident. As a result, the appeal was granted, and the previous order was overturned. The case is now referred back to the Tribunal to determine the compensation amount in accordance with the law. The matter will be scheduled for the earliest available date on 10.07.2023. The compensation amount should be paid to the appellants/claimants within two weeks following the decision.

CASE NAME: SITA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

-Report by Sejal Jethva

RITU TOMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, in this case, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for the quashing of the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).

FACTS

According to the prevailing tradition and practice, the marriage of the appellant’s sister, Ms. Rekha, the fourth respondent in this case, and the third respondent came to be solemnized on May 15, 2011, leading to its consummation and the birth of a baby girl who has since been given the name Tejal.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

According to the said Ms. Rekha, who claimed she had been expelled from the marital home, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was registered as V. No. 230 of 2014 and is currently pending on the file of the Principal Family Judge. As a result, an order was made on July 22, 2017, requiring the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month. Additionally, on March 15, 2017, she filed a police report (FIR) with the Harsh Vihar Police Station in North East Delhi for Crime No. 73 of 2017 against the third respondent and others for offences punishable by Sections 498A, 406/34 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The jurisdictional police claimed to have started the inquiry based on the aforementioned FIR that was filed.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

When the aforementioned factual situation occurred, the third respondent filed an Application No. 41 of 2018 under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the appellant and Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had forcibly entered his home and attacked the complainant and his father with a knife on the applicant’s head with the intent to kill them when they refused to heed their demands to leave the village after selling the land and home. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, which was brought before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gautam Budh Nagar, a report from the second respondent was requested; as a result, a report was submitted on March 11, 2018, opining that the accused parties, including the appellant, never visited the complainant’s home and that the incident in question had not occurred. However, the Learned Magistrate ordered the filing of a police report on May 3, 2018, and as a result, the second respondent filed a police report in Case Crime No. 55 of 2018 against the appellant and others for the violations listed above. As a result, a plea to nullify the aforementioned FIR was filed; however, when it was denied, the current appeal was submitted.

JUDGMENT

1. We have read the documents and listened to knowledgeable solicitors representing the parties. After giving the claim made by the appellant before the High Court careful consideration and repetition before this Court, we have concluded that the third respondent, who is the appellant’s sister’s husband and who had filed an application under Section 156(3) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar in application No.41 of 2018, has unquestionably passed away while the current proceedings were pending. His name was consequently removed by order dated January 20, 2020. Regarding responses 1 and 2, none have surfaced.

2. Despite the aforementioned facts and the fact that a dispute between two families had already led to the wife filing two cases, which led to the registration of an FIR against the complainant (the third respondent here) and his family members, as well as the fact that none of the villagers, including the complainant’s neighbours, had supported or testified about the occurrence of any incident on January 26, 2018, as claimed by the complainant.

3. Therefore, insofar as the appellant is concerned, we quash the proceedings filed by the second respondent as Crime No.97 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342, and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, the appeal is granted. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3mWmir2