*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU + W.P.No.7205 of 2009 % 17th February, 2010 # Rayavarapu Venkata Ramana & another. .. Petitioners Versus $ The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad & others. .. Respondents < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioners : Mr.T.L.KRISHNA PRASAD ^ Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.B.H.R.CHOUDARY ^ Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Mr.O.MANOHAR REDDY ^ Counsel for Respondent No.4 : G.P. FOR REVENUE ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.7205 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue death certificate certifying the death of R.Satyanarayana, the victim in Gowthami Express Train Accident, which occurred on 31.7.2008, after getting DNA Test Reports from Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad or alternatively direct to issue certificate basing on prima facie evidence of travel of R.Satyanarayana as per travel/reservation chart and approval of TTC confirming travel of the said passenger and consequently direct the first respondent to grant ex gratia to the petitioners on par with the dependants of victims of Train accident and also direct the third respondent to release all terminal benefits, which the first petitioner is entitled. According to the second petitioner, his father Rayavarapu Satyanarayana S/o R.Padmanabha Rao boarded Train No.2738-Gowthami Express at Secunderabad for Kakinada after purchasing ticket for S-10 coach berth No.49. When the train crossed Kesamudram moving towards Dornakal, near Tallapusulapally, fire erupted in S-10 coach and the same was spread to S-9, S-11 and S-12 coaches also. One lady passenger ran into S-11 coach and informed the eruption of fire in S-10 coach to on duty RPF (Railway Protection Force) Head Constable. The Constable immediately alerted and pulled the alarm chain. Passengers in the coach panicked and rushed towards vestibules for safety, but they were unable to get down from the train due to non-opening of doors. In the tragedy 30 out of 54 passengers traveling, were gutted to ashes and two lady passengers who were rescued from the bogie died on the way to hospital. None of the passengers traveling in S-9, S-11 and S-12 coaches suffered injuries and they de-boarded from the train safely. In the said fire accident, entire S-10 coach was burnt into ashes. Petitioner’s father, who was old aged burnt alive and only ashes of his mortal remains left. A case in Crime No.191 of 2008 was registered as Fire Accident and investigation was taken up under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code by RPS/Warangal. Police summoned the clues team and requested the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory to send their team to the scene of offence. Both the teams collected 48 samples at the scene of offence. Later they deposited the samples in FSL, Hyderabad vide receipt No.425/CHE/2008. They also conducted panchanama over the dead bodies of 32 persons in the presence of six Tahsildars, whose bodies were charred beyond recognition. The Forensic Directors of Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal issued 32 PME Reports and recommended 16 samples for DNA Test after, excluding six identified bodies. The second respondent vide letter dated 19.9.2008 has given the entire details of incident on the application of one of the dependant of victim under Right to Information Act. The second respondent confirmed that father of second petitioner had traveled in S-10 coach, Birth No.49 and died/gutted in the fire accident. As per the request of second respondent, petitioners gave their blood samples to the FSL authorities for DNA profiling. The second petitioner further stated that his father was a retired employee of third respondent and when they approached him for release of terminal benefits, there was no response. Though he ran from pillar to post, no death certificate was issued nor any ex-gratia was granted, whereas the first respondent granted ex-gratia to the dependants/relatives of victims who were identified. Hence this writ petition. Detailed and individual counter affidavits have been filed by respondents. The first respondent-General Manager, South Central Railway, in his counter stated that the name of one R.Satyanarayana is in chart dated 31.7.2008 related to berth No.49 in S-10 coach of Gouthami Express and his name was also included in the list of missing persons prepared by DSP/GRP, Kazipet. It is further stated that the Railway authorities immediately after noting fire, sprung into action and separated Coach No.10 from the main train and then the team of Doctors was called. The forensic experts conducted postmortem and collected samples for DNA test. So far 16 dead bodies were identified and certified and those bodies are handed over to their respective relatives and the identification of remaining bodies is in progress with Government Railway Police, Kazipet. It is also stated that the Railway Administration will not delay the process of claim once it is filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, the forum to deal all such cases. The fourth respondent-Tahsildar, Kesamudram also filed counter stating that in the instant case, the Railway authorities have identified (16) passengers died for which he had issued death Certificates, but the Railway authorities have not identified other passengers as dead for which he has not issued death certificates. He further stated that unless and until identification is made by the Railway authorities with regard to death, he is not competent to issue death certificate. From the counter filed by first respondent, it is an admitted fact that the father of second petitioner R.Satyanarayana had traveled in S-10 Coach of Gouthami Express on 31.7.2008 with berth No.49 and died in the accident. The second respondent furnished further details of incident on the application of one of the dependant of victim under Right to Information Act. The respondents 1 and 2 confirmed that the father of second petitioner R.Satyanarayana had traveled in S-10 coach and died in the fire accident and the petitioners had also gave their blood samples to the FSL authorities for DNA profiling. However, according to the FSL authorities, the bodies were charred to such an extent that they became invalid for the purpose of DNA Test. In the panchanama conducted by both the teams, 48 samples were collected and the same were deposited in Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The Forensic Directors of Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal issued 32 PME Reports and recommended 16 samples for DNA Test after excluding identified bodies. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the father of second petitioner not died in the said Train accident. All the above available concrete facts would drive for a definite presumption that the father of second petitioner died in Gautami Express Fire accident. Therefore, it must be deemed that he is no more. In this context, it is appropriate to notice Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under: “Court may presume existence of certain facts: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case.” Presumption of fact is nothing but logical inference of the existence of one fact drawn from other proved or known facts, without the help of any artificial rules of law, and they are always rebuttable. The legal consequence of drawing a presumption is to cast on the opponent the duty of producing contrary evidence. A presumption upon a matter of fact, means that common experience shows the fact to be so generally true that courts may notice the truth. The presumptions of fact are in truth but mere arguments of which the major premise is not a rule of law. They depend upon their own natural force and efficiency in generating belief or conviction in the mind, as derived with those connections, which are shown by experience, irrespective of any legal relations. The effect of this provision is to make it perfectly clear that courts of justice are to use their own common sense and experience in judging of the effect of particular facts. Perhaps the most important rule as to presumptions is that they must be based upon facts and not upon inferences or upon other presumptions. No presumption can with safety be drawn from another presumption. The fact presumed should have direct relation with the fact from which the presumption is drawn; but when the facts are established from which presumptions may be legitimately drawn, it is the province of the Court to deduce the presumption or inference of fact. If the connection is too remote or uncertain, it is the duty of the court to exclude either the testimony from which the presumption is sought to be deduced or to instruct the Court that the evidence affords no proper foundation for any presumption. Where the fact, giving rise to a presumption under Section 114, is undisputed and no explanation negativing the presumption is offered, the Court is justified in laying the onus proper where, but for the presumption, the onus could not be laid. Coming to the facts of the present case, as noticed above, absolutely there is no scope for drawing conflicting presumptions or there is any scope for a second opinion. The only presumption in this case, necessarily to be drawn, is that the father of second petitioner died in Gowthami Express Train Accident, which occurred on 31.7.2008, and burnt to such a level that his body was not valid even for the purpose of DNA Test. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the father of second petitioner is missing since a longtime and he has taken a wrong plea for a wrongful gain or his father is alive and he is hiding himself somewhere, therefore no death certificate can be issued. None of the respondents entertained even an iota of suspicion as to occurrence of death of father of second petitioner in the train accident. Further, no conflicting presumption or second opinion can be arrived at on the facts of the case. This is nothing, but an inference/presumption requires to be drawn from common course of natural events. Further, the respondents have neither doubted nor denied the death of father of second petitioner in the Train accident, except opposing the petition for opposition sake. There is no concrete rebuttal evidence placed before the Court by the respondents to disbelieve the statement of the petitioners. The series of facts, as noticed above, in the common course of natural events, would lead to an irrebuttable presumption of fact that the father of second petitioner died in the Train accident. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that it must be presumed, under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, that the father of second petitioner R.Satyanarayana died in Gowthami Express Train Accident on 31.7.2008. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions: 1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to issue a Certificate to the effect that the father of second petitioner R.Satyanarayana died in the Gowthami Express Train Accident occurred on 31.7.2008. 2. On the basis of the Certificate issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.4 is directed to issue Death Certificate to the effect that the father of second petitioner R.Satyanarayana died in Gowthami Express Train Accident on 31.7.2008. 3. The respondent No.3 is directed to act upon such Certificate without any further delay for the purpose of releasing terminal benefits of R.Satyanarayana in favour of petitioners and also granting exgratia/ compensation/insurance claim etc., as the case may be. 4. Further, the respondents, as an abundant caution, may insist upon execution of an indemnity bond by the petitioners for the amount of compensation/exgratia paid. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.2.2010 Note: L.R. Copy be marked. B/o DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.7205 of 2009 17.2.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.7205 of 2009 Date: 17th February, 2010 Between: Rayavarapu Venkata Ramana & another. .. Petitioners And The General Manager, South Central Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad & others. .. Respondents