Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sharmila Bafna vs Union Of India on 13 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6901
1 MA-726-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 726 of 2017
SMT. SHARMILA BAFNA AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri M. Shafiqullah, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Shiv Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved of
the judgment dated 13/02/2017 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhopal Bench in Case No.OA/IIu/2013/0056 whereby learned Railway
Claims Tribunal has declined the award of compensation on account of death
of Vimal Kumar Bafna who had fallen down from a running train recording a
finding that accident was on account of the criminal act of the deceased, as a
result, it will be covered under Exception (c) of the proviso below Section
124A of the Railways Act. It is submitted that learned Railway Claims
Tribunal, after recording a finding that deceased was trying to board a
moving train, has held that act to be a criminal act, hence, denied
compensation.
2. Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent, supports the
impugned judgment and submits that since deceased died because of his own
negligence and words 'negligence so also the criminal act' are to be read as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6901
2 MA-726-2017
synonyms, therefore, impugned judgment is not required to be interfered
with.
3. On going through the judicial dictionary, third edition, Orient
Publishing Company by Justice L.P. Singh and P.K. Majumdar, though
criminal act is not defined but crime is defined. Crime is defined as under:
"Crime. - A crime is an act deemed by law to be harmful to
society in general even though its immediate victim is an individual.
The notion of crime as a threat to the whole community is the material
counterpart of the formal rule that the State alone is master of a criminal
prosecution. No private person has a direct interest in a criminal
proceeding, although exception may be made by the statute in certain
cases. It is common knowledge that a criminal prosecution is not
intended for the private satisfaction of a personal vendetta or revenge.
[P.S.R. Sadhanantham V. Arunchalam, AIR 1980 SC 856] ."
When this definition of criminal act is taken into consideration,
then the act of the deceased in boarding a moving train cannot be said
to be his own criminal act but can, at best, be said to be his negligence,
therefore, in the opinion of this Court, case of the claimants will not fall
under clause (c) below the proviso under Section 124A of the Railways
Act, 1989 and to that extent learned Railway Claims Tribunal erred in
overlooking to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jameela and others Vs. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 3705 wherein it
is held that standing at the open doors of compartment of running train
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6901
3 MA-726-2017
may be a negligent act, even a rash act, but, without anything else, it is
certainly not a criminal act.
4. Even otherwise, as per the common understanding of the
Criminal Law, for an act to be criminal, there has to be a mens rea.
When these aspects are taken into consideration, then in absence of
mens rea being proved, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal could not
have brought the act of boarding a running train within the four corners
of the word 'criminal act', therefore, impugned judgment cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. It is hereby quashed.
5. Since it is an admitted fact that deceased was bona fide
passenger, instead of remitting the matter, this appeal is allowed.
Railway authorities are directed to pay compensation to the tune of
Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakh only) within 60 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
6. In above terms, this appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
