Latest News
Back
Document:
Karnataka HC: “It cannot be expected that passenger train should also equally sustain damages as that of a Tipper Lorry which dashed against it.”
The facts of the case of the prosecution against the accused were that, on 26.02.2006 near Kethohalli Railway Halt Gate, a Tipper Lorry being driven by the accused in a high speed and a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a moving passenger train and as a result of which accident, the complainant and other passengers in the said train sustained simple and grievous injuries. Though the injured were admitted or treated immediately in the hospitals, one among the injured by the name Tabarez, son of Nasarulla Shariff, who was admitted to the Government Hospital, Ramanagara, succumbed to the injuries.
The matter was heard at the Trial court and after hearing both sides, the trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction and order convicted the accused (present petitioner) for the offenses punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, 304A of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Hence the trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court's records were called for and the same was placed before the High Court.
Learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner contended that the evidence of alleged injured witnesses cannot be believed since none of them have produced any railway tickets of their journey in the train and few of the prosecution witnesses had stated that at the time of the accident, they were sitting on the footboard or standing near the door of the slow-moving train. Section 156 of the Railways Act mentions that, if any passenger or any other person, after being warned by a railway servant to desist, persists in traveling on the roof, step or footboard of any carriage or an engine, or in any other part of a train not intended for the use of passengers, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which extends to three months, or with fine, which extends to five hundred rupees, or with both. Thus, traveling on a footboard in a moving train would be an offense under Section 156 of the Railways Act, provided such passenger was duly warned by a railway servant to desist before such an act by the passenger.
The prosecution marked that the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner has not made out any other grounds worth considering. On the other hand, the evidence led by the prosecution, wherein all fifteen witnesses have unequivocally supported its case and where all the material witnesses observed by the prosecution as injured witnesses also have supported the case of the prosecution and when panchas (mahazar witnesses) also have supported the case of the prosecution, further, the inquest mahazar, wound certificates, post mortem report, IMV report, scene of offense panchanama have further corroborated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, both the trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court had rightly held the accused guilty of the alleged offenses. The judgment of conviction was not termed as suffering from any illegality, impropriety, or perversity.
Document:
