Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Hence, from these evidences it is apparent that the victim was traveling from train. However, to the contrary there is no evidence contrary on the point from railways. However, the suggestion has been given that deceased jumped from train during ticket checking. However, except suggestion there is nothing in evidence to show that the victim has jumped from the train. However, Ext. A/2 is the fardbeyan by the informant, Ext. A/3 is the inquest report and A/4 is the charge sheet support the case of claimant about the occurrence or injury by fall from the train and the post mortem report also suggests of the injury by hard blunt substance also supports the case of claimant.

15. In decision reported in AIR 2007 38 Patna (Union of India Vs. Hari Narayan Gupta & Anr.) where it has been held that the passenger is presumed to be innocent, a legal presumption can be drawn that he had followed the law and that he had, indeed, purchased a valid ticket prior to boarding the train and the presumption in favour of the Railway that the railway officers would have discharged his duty for checking the ticket, in a bona fide manner, it can be presumed that the ticket collector would have examined whether the deceased possesses a valid ticket or not and thereafter the railway has a means through which they can easily prove that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the burden of proof lied on the railway administration to lead evidence and to prove that the decease was not a bona fide passenger and hence in view of the fact that A.W. 1 has appeared as a witness and has stated that the deceased has boarded the train after taking a valid ticket and there is no evidence against and since there is presumption of the passenger traveling any rail with bona fide tickets and the burden of proof lies on the railway administration.