Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.In the said context it is to be examined that the case of deceased passenger carrying in train and died due to accident and fall in any of the exception; or with the ticket to establish that he was a bona fide passenger, the burden lies on whom. As per Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof places on a person whoever desires in any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, whether the said principle may be made applicable in the case of a railway accident, where passenger has died and the claimants have come to know about his death from the horses mouth and on receiving intimation, after enquiry should have reached on spot and found the dead body. In such a case it cannot be presumed from the claimants to search the ticket from the clothes of the deceased, and its belongings in place of going to fulfil the legal formalities to find out the dead body. It may be observed that the family members or the dependents would first identify the body and shall go for ritual or cremation of dead body without searching the ticket except making such averments. In such circumstances, it can safely be observed that it would be extremely difficult or impossible to the family members to prove that the deceased was possessing a valid ticket because it is beyond to their reach and control. It can safely be understood that the claimants may not be in a position to prove that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket and was a bona fide passenger. Since the railway administration appoints a ticket collector and also having a vigilance team to search the ticketless passenger and can take recourse of the penal provisions as specified under Sections 137, 138, 139 and 179 of the Railways Act. In such circumstances since the railway administration having a mechanism to find out the passengers travelling without valid ticket or pass adopting the recourse as permissible. In such circumstances, presumption can be drawn in favour of the citizen of abiding the law while having journey through train with valid ticket being bona fide passenger. At this juncture the principle of common law can be noted that "every man is innocent till proved guilty". In the said sequel of facts it can safely be presumed that the ticket collector would have examined whether the deceased possess a valid ticket or not, however, the railway administration can easily prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger as the proof lies with them. At this stage, looking to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the deceased was going from Betul to Amla which is a journey by passenger train of approximately 45 minutes. During such period, if a person has travelled without ticket the ticket collector checking the train must have checked the ticket of the deceased and if he was found without ticket must have collected the fare as specified under Section 138 or penalized as per Section 137 of the Railways Act. In such circumstances, the burden of proof shifts on the railway administration to lead evidence for proving that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The said material may be available with the railway administration which is not produced in this case. In the said context, it can safely be held that the burden of proof shifts on the railway administration in the railway accident claim cases.