Seizure Memo - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling

24Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Eases Burden of Proof for Railway Accident Victims in Landmark Ruling

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof in railway accident compensation claims under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court held that the initial burden on claimants can be discharged by affidavit and verified ticket records, shifting the onus to the Railways. Mere absence of a ticket or seizure memo does not defeat a legitimate claim, as the statutory regime is a welfare-oriented, no-fault liability system based on preponderance of probabilities. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the death of Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik on 19 May 2017. He was allegedly travelling from Indore to Ujjain by the Ranthambore Express (Train No. 12465) when, due to overcrowding, he was pushed from the moving train near Ujjain, sustaining fatal head injuries. The police regi...

No Retrial Merely to Fill Gaps in Prosecution, Rules Supreme Court in Drug Case

The Supreme Court held that a retrial is an exceptional remedy not warranted merely to rectify procedural lapses in evidence admission. Electronic evidence complying with Section 65B of the Evidence Act is admissible without a transcript. The non-examination of a Chemical Analyst or non-production of samples is not automatically fatal, as an appellate court can remedy such defects under Section 391 CrPC instead of ordering a retrial. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a raid conducted by police on a hut based on information that the appellant, Kailas, and another accused were stocking Ganja for sale. Following due procedure, the raiding party, which included panch witnesses and a gazetted officer, searched the hut and recovered 18 plastic packets containing 39 kilograms of Ganja...

Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done: Supreme Court Allows Investigation into CBI Officers’ Conduct

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to register an FIR, ruling that if a complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, the police are mandatorily obligated to register it under Section 154 CrPC. A preliminary inquiry report cannot oust this statutory duty or the constitutional court's power to direct an investigation, as its findings are not conclusive. The veracity of the allegations must be tested through a proper investigation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from two separate writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court by Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal. They sought directions for the registration of an FIR against two CBI officers, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Kumar, alleging serious misconduct. The allegations against the officers included t...