The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'precinct' as occurring in Section 123(c) (1) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the relevant rules under the Railway (Notices and Inquiries into Accidents) Rules, 1998 to determine the location of the alleged occurrence within the railway precincts.

This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna, Patna Bench, Patna in Case No. OA 00029 of 2002, whereby the claim case has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the matter briefly stated is that on 17.11.2001 the husband of the claimant, namely, Anup Chaurasiya was to board train no. 2312 Kalka-Howrah Mail from platform no. 3 at Sasaram railway station. It is stated that after purchasing a journey ticket, as the husband of the claimant was proceeding towards the station alongwith his cousin brother Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya, some identified persons tried to snatch his hand bag which contained the railway ticket and a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Upon resistance being shown by the husband of the claimant, he received gun shot injuries which resulted in his death during the course of treatment. Since according to the wife of the claimant the occurrence took place within the railway precincts, hence she filed the claim case in question and which has been dismissed by the order impugned inter alia on grounds that the alleged occurrence took place beyond the railway precincts and thus the claimant was not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. The only issue thus posed before this Court is whether the alleged incident which resulted in the death of the husband of the claimant, took place within the railway precincts or beyond that. If the answer to the issue posed is in the affirmative i.e. it took place within the railway precincts then the claimant has a case in her favour and if it has taken place beyond the railway precincts then she is not entitled for any compensation.

4. Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel has appeared for the claimant as an appellant before this Court and Mr. Anil Singh learned counsel has appeared for the respondent railways.

5. It is the case of the claimant that when the deceased alongwith his cousin brother, namely, Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya was on the approach road heading towards the station, he was shot at by the criminals who also robbed him of his belongings. The claimant led nine exhibits in support of her claim of which exhibit A/1 is the affidavit of the cousin brother of the deceased, namely, Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya who has explained the sequence of events and has submitted that the deceased was going to Kolkata for purchasing betel in the course of his business and was carrying Rs. 40,000/- in cash in a bag which also contained his journey ticket and other papers. It is stated on affidavit by the said Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya who is the eye witness to the occurrence that as they were proceeding towards the platform, two unknown criminals surrounded them and tried to snatch the hand bag which was protested by the deceased and whereupon they opened fire which hit the deceased on his abdomen and resulted in his death during the course of treatment. It is stated that the criminals having snatched the bag, fled away. An FIR was instituted immediately giving rise to Sasaram Government Rail P.S. Case No. 105 of 2001.

6. Exhibit A/2 is the affidavit of the claimant who has reiterated the same position.

7. Exhibit A/3 is the copy of the FIR in Sasaram Rail P.S. Case No. 105 of 2001 and mentions the place of occurrence at a distance of 600 gaj from the police station.

8. Exhibit A/4 is the fard beyan of the eye witness-cousin brother of the deceased, namely, Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya which forms part of the FIR.

9. Exhibit A/5 is the post mortem report which supports the incident and the statement of the informant.

10. Exhibit A/6 is the medical certification of S.S. Hospital, B.H.U., Varanasi.

11. Exhibit A/7 is the newspaper report of the incident; and

12. Exhibit A/8 is the extract of the case diary containing the final report submitted by the rail police.

13. The claimant led herself as applicant witness no. 2 and h