Barin Ghosh and J.N.Singh JJ.

1. In the present appeal, two facts are undisputed. Firstly, Ram Singar Singh fell from train No. 5203 UP at the Hajipur Railway Station and died. Secondly, immediately before and after his death Ram Singar Singh was alone.

2. The death resulted in an Inquest Report, which suggested that the dead person was wearing a shirt and a pair of trousers. The Inquest Report does not say that the Shirt and a pair of trousers of the deceased did not have pockets. The Inquest Report further does not say the pockets of the shirt and the trousers, which are usual, did not contain anything.

3. This death led to filing of a claim case before the Railway Claims Tribunal. While on behalf of the claimants one, Lakshman Paswan, had deposed and boldly stated that he saw the deceased purchasing ticket, his evidence could not be shaken in cross-examination. Though a plea was taken that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger, no evidence to prove the same was tendered before the Tribunal by the Railway Administration. It is unfortunate that the people, who conducted the Inquest Report and who were members of G.R.P., were not called to give evidence. In the circumstances, Tribunal allowed the claim in the Claim case and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs.

4. Against the award of the Tribunal, Railway Administration filed an appeal.

That has been allowed by the learned Single Judge simply on the basis of surmises and conjunctures. Instead of looking into the evidence tendered in the case, learned Judge felt that since the Inquest Report does not mention that the deceased was carrying a Railway Ticket for the journey, the deceased was an unauthorized passenger, and that Lakshman Paswan may have confused between Ticket Counter and Enquiry Counter and lastly, that evidence of Lakshman Paswan is not inspiring for he did not terminate his journey immediately after the accident took place.

5. Railways Act provides prosecution of persons entering Railway Stations without valid journey ticket or platform ticket. That makes it abundantly clear that without a ticket, either for undertaking a journey or for the purpose of visiting the platform, no one is entitle to be within the precincts of a Railway Station. That the person was in the precincts of the Railway Station would, therefore, logically have a presumption that he had a ticket for him. That he did not have a ticket was obligatory on the part of the Railway Administration to prove. The Railway Administration could bring on record of the claim case necessary circumstances, which would lead to a conclusion that the person concerned was a ticketless traveller or a ticketless wanderer. In the instant case, if the Inquest Report had indicated the contents of the pocket of the shirt and of the pair of trousers of the deceased or the persons, who conducted the Inquest, had come and deposed, a circumstance could be created for a person to believe that the deceased was a ticketless traveller, but no such step having been taken, it is surprising that the Railway Administration was advised to prefer an appeal against the award and thereby waste further public time, energy and money.

6. Inasmuch as the reasons furnished in the order under appeal setting aside the award of the Tribunal are based on surmises and conjunctures, we have no other option but to allow the present appeal and to set aside the Judgment and Order under appeal.

7. However, before us the Railway Administration is seeking to contend that until 1.00 am. of the fateful date, no second class ticket had been issued from Hajipur Railway Station in respect of the Train from which the deceased fell. It is surprising that the Railway Administration did not think it proper to raise such a contention before the Tribunal. It is surprising that even after making such a statement before this Court, the Railway Administration did not bother to substantiate the same by placing any cogent evidence in support thereof. Fr