IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6448 of 1999 SAKUNTALA DEVI wife of late Dadan Singh, resident of village Bahuara, P.S. Jagdishpur, Distt. Bhojpur (Ara). . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah (West Bengal) 2. The Divisional Superintendent of Railway, Eastern Railway, Danapur, Patna. 3. State of Bihar, through Inspector General of GRPF, Bihar, Patna. 4. Home Commissioner (Police), Bihar, Patna. 5. Sachendra Kumar Yadav, constable, son of Late Dukhi Prasad Yadav, Village & P.O. Ratam, P.S. Gobari, Distt. Khagaria (Police No. 555 (Patna) GRP, Patna. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 9/ 22.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five lacs) as compensation for murder of her husband in a train. The petitioner sates that her husband late Dadan Singh was traveling in Magadh Express (2391 UP) on 28.09.1998 from Ara to Vindhyachal. She submits that on question of sitting on birth no.8 of S-5 one Sachendra Kumar Yadav, a GRP constable shot him dead. The TTE of the train in question immediately lodged the F.I.R., which has been annexed as Annexure-1. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against Sachendra Kumar Yadav, a GRP constable, who was on duty. Learned counsel submits that it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was killed by a GRP constable on duty in train in respect of dispute of sitting on birth no.8. Thus submits that as the right to life of her husband has been smashed by a government constable on duty, she would be entitled to compensation. - 2 - Counsel for the State has filed affidavit. The factum of occurrence has not been denied by the State. He further submits that the G.R.P. constable, Sachendra Kumar Yadav, has been dismissed from the service also. It is submitted that there is no provision for grant of compensation in respect of an individual act of misdemeanor in a train. Learned counsel submits that it will be open to the petitioner to file her claim before the Railway Tribunal under Section 124 A of the Railway Act, 1989. Heard counsel for the parties. Section 124 A of the Railway Act relates to compensation for untoward incident. The word ‘untoward’ has been defined in Section 123 (1) as (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by insertion Act 28 of 1994. In view of incorporation of Section 124 A by Act 28 of 1994 incident of shoot out on the train has also been brought under the ambit of Railways Act. Under these circumstances, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Railway Tribunal for the relief sought for in the instant writ application. This observation would not come in the way of the petitioner in filing a representation before the respondent no.4, for grant of any interim compensation. In case, if such representation is being filed, the same would be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt. In case, the - 3 - petitioner files an application for condonation of delay, the same would be considered sympathetically, as the petitioner was pursuing her remedy before this Court. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)