Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sukhvinder Kaur, J
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Dharmender Singh – Respondent
CRM-A-462-2025 (O&M)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narender Kumar Vashist

Section 160(2) of the Railways Act requires the prosecution to prove intentional misconduct; rash or negligent driving does not suffice. Additionally, confessional statements recorded in custody must strictly adhere to procedural mandates regarding handwriting and independent witnesses to be admissible for conviction.

Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1890 - Section 160(1) and 160(2) - Breaking of level crossing gate boom - Requirement of intentional misconduct - Rashness and negligence exclude the element of intention - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Exemption from filing typed copy - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25 and 26 - Admissibility of confessional statements recorded in custody - Lack of independent witnesses and failure to record in accused's handwriting - Not sustainable for conviction. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

(B) Evidence - Mechanical examination and damage reports - Lack of evidence regarding repair of gate boom and uncertainty regarding rubbing marks on vehicle - Prosecution failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The respondent, Dharmender Singh, was accused of breaking the boom of a railway level crossing gate (Gate No.97-C) while driving his vehicle on 29.05.2021. A criminal case under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act was registered. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent, citing the benefit of doubt. The Union of India appealed the acquittal, contending that the prosecution's evidence, including a confessional statement and mechanical reports, was cogent and proved the charges.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the gateman's testimony suggested the vehicle was moving at high speed, which implies rashness or negligence rather than the specific "prior intention" required by Section 160(2) of the Railways Act. The confessional statement was deemed unreliable as it was not written by the accused and was not witnessed by independent persons. Additionally, the evidence showed the gate was not fully closed at the time of the collision, and the fact of repair was not proven.

Issues: Whether the act of breaking the railway gate boom constituted an intentional misconduct under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act or was merely a result of rash driving, and whether the confessional statement of the accused met the legal requirements for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 160(2) of the Railways Act is designed to punish intentional misconduct; therefore, acts of rash or negligent driving exclude the necessary element of intention. Furthermore, confessional statements recorded in custody must strictly comply with procedural mandates—such as being in the accused's own handwriting and attested by independent witnesses—to be used as a basis for conviction.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J . :

CRM-11843-2025 :

This is application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condonation of delay of 347 days in filing the present appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and delay of 347 days in filing the present appeal is hereby

condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRM-11844-2025 :

This is application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking exemption to file true

typed copy of the judgment.

Allowed as prayed for.

The application stands disposed of.

MONIKA

2025.12.22 13:12

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRM-A-462-2025 (O&M) 2

Main Appeal :

Aggrieved against the judgment dated 25.07.2023, passed by

learned Special Railway Magistrate, Ambala Cantt., whereby the respondent

has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him, the appellant has

approached this Court by way of present appeal.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts, which are

required for proper adjudication of the present appeal, are that on

29.05.2021, respondent Dharmender Singh allegedly broke the boom of

gate No.97-C, by striking his vehicle bearing registration No.PB-32-L-9716

against it, while the same was closed to the road traffic. Consequently, on

the statement of concerned Gateman on duty namely Krishan Kumar,

Criminal Case No.93/2021, under Section 160(2) of the Railway Act was

registered against the respondent on 29.05.2021 itself. The respondent was

arrested. After completion of report, complaint was presented before the

Court for trial of the accused.

Finding prima facie case against the respondent, he was

charge-sheeted under Section 160(2) of the Railways Act. The respondent

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Statement of the accused/ respondent

was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as

many as five witnesses.

PW-1 Krishan Kumar, who was posted as Gateman, proved

complaint given to SI Ramesh Kumar RPF Yamuna Nagar as Ex.PW1/A,

inspection memo as Ex.PW1/B, arrest and jamatalashi memo as Ex.PW1/C,

MONIKA

2025.12.22 13:12

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRM-A-462-2025 (O&M) 3

site plan as Ex.PW1/D, seizure memo as Ex.PW1/E, confessional statement

of accused as Ex.PW1/ F, his statement as Ex.PW1/G, copy of cabin log

book Ex.PW1/H and photographs Ex.P1 to P6.

PW-2 Vinay Kumar proved memo as Ex.PW2/A issued by

him and his statement as Ex.PW2/B.

PW-3 Ravinder Singh, Mechanic stepped into the witness

box and proved letter received by him as Ex.PW3/A, mechanical

examination report as Ex.PW3/B and his statement as Ex.PW3/C.

PW-4 Retd. SI Ramesh Kumar proved memo issued by

SS/YJUD as Ex.PW2/A, rojnamcha entry as Ex.PW4/A, tehrir as

Ex.PW1/A, inspection memo as Ex.PW1/B, arrest and jamatalashi memo as

Ex.PW1/C, site plan as Ex.PW1/D, seizure memo as Ex.PW1/E, statements

of Gateman and accused Dharmender as Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/F,

respectively, rojnamcha entry No.19 as Ex.PW4/B, letter as Ex.PW3/A,

mechanical examination report as Ex.PW3/B, statement of Ravinder Singh

mechanic as Ex.PW3/C, letter qua obtaining damage report as Ex.PW4/ C,

damage report as Ex.PW4/D, statement of SSE Bhupender Singh as

Ex.PW4/E, superdari memo as Ex.PW4/F, return of jamatalashi memo as

Ex.PW4/G, cabin log book as EX.PW1/H, photographs as Ex.P1 to P6 and

complaint against accused as Ex.PW4/H.

PW-5 Bhupinder Singh, SSE/SIG stepped into the witness

box as PW5 and he proved letter as Ex.PW4/C, damage report as Ex.PW4/D

and his statement as Ex.PW4/E.

On the other hand, no defence evidence was led by the

MONIKA

2025.12.22 13:12

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRM-A-462-2025 (O&M) 4

accused.

After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence

on record, the learned Trial Court reached the conclusion that the

prosecution could not prove the allegations levelled against the accused and

thus, vide judgment dated 25.07.2023, the respondent was acquitted of the

charges levelled agains

Click Here to Read the rest of this document