Judgment.- Dattatreya Venkatesh Patil (A-1) was working as Assistant Station Master and Siddappa Banamappa Kuriyavar (A-2) and Hanumanthappa Chikkappa (A-3) were working either as pointsman or gatesman at Yelavigi railway station on 19th March, 1968. Yelavigi railway station is between Hubli and Harihar and the immediate stations on either side are Gudgeri towards Hubli and Savanur towards Harihar. On 19th March, 1968, there was an unfortunate disaster at the Yelavigi railway station resulting in the loss of several lives and injuries to number of persons due to a head-on collision between the Deccan Express (No. 208) and Birur-Hubli passenger train (No. 215), which was standing on the main line. 2. These three accused were tried for offences under sections 337, 338 and 304-A. of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 101 and 128 of the Indian Railways Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar, and by his judgment, dated 10th August, 1970, in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1970 he convicted the accused persons under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year; convicted under section 338, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also convicted under section 101 of the Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed the sentences to run concurrently. They were acquitted of the other charges. A-1 has preferred Cr.A. No. 238 of 1970, A-2 has preferred Cr.A. No. 240 of 1970 and A-3 has preferred Cr.A. No. 241 of 1970 against the convictions and sentences passed against them. 3. The facts which have given rise to the prosecution of the accused may briefly be stated: on 19th March, 1968, Shelavapully (P.W. 6) was the Assistant Station Master at Yelavigi station and he worked from 7 a.m. till 7 p.m. and handed over charge to A-1. One Venugopal Naidu was the station master. As he was on leave, A-1, who was the senior most assistant station master, was in charge of the station. Before P.W. 6 handed over charge, he allotted the work to pointsmen and gatesmen from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. on the following day. One Venugopal Naidu was the station master. As he was on leave, A-1, who was the senior most assistant station master, was in charge of the station. Before P.W. 6 handed over charge, he allotted the work to pointsmen and gatesmen from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. on the following day. Exhibit P-6 is the Station Diary Book, in which he has made relevant entries showing the allotment of duties to the pointsmen and gatesmen on 19th March, 1968. On that day, there were 7 pointsmen and 4 gatesmen in Yelavigi station. As per the allotment of work done by P.W. 6, Durgappa (P.W. 4) was to work as Down-Pointsman; A-2 was to work as middle duty pointsman and A-3 was to work as gatesman at the gate towards Hubli, all from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. on the following day. Biddadeppa. (P.W. 5) was deputed to work at the point towards Savanur side. To show where these persons had actually to work, entries were made by P.W. 6 in the Station Diary Exhibit P-6. When A-1 took charge from P.W. 6 he signed the relevant entries in Exhibit P-6. After A-1 took charge, the Miraj-Bangalore passenger train (No. 220) arrived at Yelavigi station at 9 p.m. and that was received on the loop line. The Bangalore-Poona Express, a non-stop train, (No. 203) was received in the main line and allowed to pass through. These two trains crossed each other at Yelavigi station. Bangalore-Poona Express which came after the arrival of the Miraj-Bangalore passenger train must necessarily have passed through Yelavigi station sometime after 9 P.M. After it crossed, Mirajt-Bangalore passenger train left the station and proceeded towards Savanur. P.W. 8 Krishnarao Bhimarao Deshpande, was working as assistant station master at Gudgeri on that night. He received the Bangalore-Poona Express at Gudgeri at 9-45 p.m. and that fact was intimated to A-1. Sometime afterwards the Birur-Hubli passenger train, which was running late by more than three hours, was detained at Yelavigi for the crossing of the Deccan Express, which was a non-stop train. The Birur-Hubli passenger train arrived at Yelavigi station at 9-51 p.m. and this fact was intimated to P.W. 8. After 10-18 P.M. P.W. 8 asked A-1 for line clearance for Deccan Express. A-1 gave clearance by which it was understood that he was prepared to receive the Deccan Express train up to the outer signal. 4. The Birur-Hubli passenger train arrived at Yelavigi station at 9-51 p.m. and this fact was intimated to P.W. 8. After 10-18 P.M. P.W. 8 asked A-1 for line clearance for Deccan Express. A-1 gave clearance by which it was understood that he was prepared to receive the Deccan Express train up to the outer signal. 4. The case of the prosecution was that A-3 did not report to duty at 7 p.m. as usual. But he had sent information to A-1 that be would come by Birur-Hubli passenger train and as the said train was running late, he would be joining duty late. A-1 therefore deputed P.W. 4, Durgappa to work at the down main signal. Accordingly he Worked at that point till the two trains, namely, train Nos. 220 and 203 crossed Yelavigi station. Sometime after 9 p.m. A-1 instructed Durgappa to be at the gate towards Hubli and relieve Basavanappa Gorwar and remain there till A-3 came and relieved him. Durgappa accordingly relieved Basavannappa Gorwar and remained at the gate. The Deccan Express passed Gudgeri station at 10-24 p.m. A-1 informed P.W. 4 Durgappa to close the gate. By that time, it was the case of the prosecution, A-3 had reported to duty and he had been asked by A-1 to go to the down main point and set the point lor loop line for the Deccan Express, A-3 without setting the points to the loop line for the Deccan Express to pass through, gave signal to A-1 that he had done so; A-1 without verifying whether the points had been set or not, handed over the key to A-2 to lower the home signal, who did so accordingly and thereafter A-3 lowered the outer signal. By these acts signals were given to the Deccan Express to pass through Yelavigi station on the main line and the result was that there was a head-on collision between the Deccan Express and the Birur-Hubli. passenger train. By these acts signals were given to the Deccan Express to pass through Yelavigi station on the main line and the result was that there was a head-on collision between the Deccan Express and the Birur-Hubli. passenger train. A-1 before giving the key to A-2 to lower the signal to the Deccan Express should and ought to have verified Whether the points had been set at the down main point for the loop line and be without verifying the same, gave the key to A-2 from which A-2 lowered down the home signal and in turn A-3 lowered down the home signal, as a result of which the Deccan Express came on the main line and collided. On these facts. the prosecution alleged that the accused had endangered the safety of the passengers in both the trains thereby became liable to be punished under section 101 of the Act by breach of the rule and the station working instructions, and the accident was due to the rash and negligent acts of the accused thereby liable to be punished under sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. * * * * [His Lordship then stated in detail the mechanical arrangements of the signals and their working as also the duties of the Station Master and pointsmen as well as the rules and working instructions the them which they ought to follow.] 23. It is no doubt true that the accused persons have not thrown the blame on the driver, (of the Deccan Express) but the case of the prosecution itself appears to be that A-1 was not at fault and he threw the blame upon A-2, who in turn, threw the blame upon A-3. By adducing such evidence, the prosecution in one breath are trying to save A-1 and through the statement of A-1 they are trying to implicate A-2 and A-3. Because the accused persons, in particular A-1, did not implicate the driver immediately after the occurrence and when he had many opportunities to defend himself, he also did not implicate the driver, it would be wrong to hold that the accused have committed the offence and in particular A-1. Such a proposition is unknown to criminal law. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution must prove by satisfactory evidence that they have committed the offence. 24. Such a proposition is unknown to criminal law. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution must prove by satisfactory evidence that they have committed the offence. 24. The State Prosecutor placed considerable reliance on the fact that A-1 in particular disregarded the rules and station working instructions. According to him, it was the duty of the station master, as per the rules to have got the points of the down main point set to the loop line even before the Birur-Hubli passenger train arrived at the station and failure to do so, makes him liable under section 101 of the Act. The rules of course provide that the points should have been set to the loop line at the down main point even before the arrival of the Biru-Hubli passenger train and that was the responsibility of A-1. Although there is some evidence in this case to show that A-1 was informed that he should retain the Birur-Hubli passenger train for the crossing of the Deccan Express before the train arrived, no record has been produced to show that he was informed at any particular time. It is consistent with the case of the prosecution that A-1 must have come to know that the Birur-Hubli passenger train should be retained for the crossing of the Deccan Express before its arrival, but there is nothing to indicate at what time the Deccan Express was expected to cross Yelavigi station. 25. P.W. 5 set the points towards Savanur after the arrival of the Birur-Hubli passenger train. It is not disputed in this case that the point at the down main home signal had not been set even after the arrival of the Birur-Hubli passenger train or when the Deccan Express passed the points. If P.W. 4 had left the point to relieve Basavanappa Gorwar at the gate at 9 or 9-15 p.m. itself and if A-3 came at 9-55 p.m. the only alternative left to A-1 was to see that the point was set to the loop line after the arrival of the Birur-Hubli passenger train either through P.W. 4 or A-3. If A-3 was instructed at about 10 P.M. or so and if he did not do it in time, A-1 had effective control of stopping the train beyond the outer signal by not lowering the signals. If A-3 was instructed at about 10 P.M. or so and if he did not do it in time, A-1 had effective control of stopping the train beyond the outer signal by not lowering the signals. Whatever may be the case of the prosecution the fact remains that the points had not been set to the loop line at the down main home point and if that were so, the home signals could not have been lowered much less the outer signal. The evidence in this case goes to show that A-2 was all along in the platform. There is no evidence to show that he operated any lever and even if he had operated, the signals would not have been lowered down because of the system. A-2’s duty was to pull the lever pertaining to the loop line and then go to the loop line with a torch and pouch containing the ball taken to hand over the same to the driver of the Deccan Express. The prosecution case itself is that A-2 remained in the station itself, which means that A-1 had not got clearance from the Savanur station and in addition to it, the points at the down main home had not been set, whoever it be, either A-3 or P.W. 4. If A-2. did not pull the lever and even if he had pulled the lever, the signals could not have been lowered the only possibility was that the driver of the Deccan Express must have crossed the signals at danger. How could the accused be said to have endangered the safety of any one? Had the act of the accused led to the collision, they would, no doubt, be liable. But here, the breach of rule by the driver has to be considered. The driver had no right to enter the station or, as a matter of fact, beyond the outer signals, nor had he any right to disregard the danger signal. 26. To make A-1 liable, the collision must be the direct consequence of his act. How in the present case can it be said that the collision was the natural consequence of anything A-1 did? How was he to know that the driver of the Deccan Express would disregard the danger signal and enter the station? 26. To make A-1 liable, the collision must be the direct consequence of his act. How in the present case can it be said that the collision was the natural consequence of anything A-1 did? How was he to know that the driver of the Deccan Express would disregard the danger signal and enter the station? A-1 never in tended by not complying with the rules to endanger the safety of the persons when he knew that he had given clearance to the Deccan Express up to the outer signal and when the situation was as stated above, he could not have anticipated the act of the driver. 27. If we were to hold that every act of contributory negligence, however, remote, was criminal, one would hardly know where to stop and even the persons who appointed the accused might be made liable within the pale of the penal provisions. 28. To constitute an offence under section 101 of the Act intention and knowledge on the part of the accused are essential and must be clearly established to be present. Such an intention or knowledge cannot be presumed from the gross impropriety of the act of the accused alone in the absence of any evidence. 29. In every case where a travelling train is actually diverted to a wrong line on which there was another train, the safety of persons in the two trains is endangered within the meaning of section 101 of the Act. If the error is due to disobedience of any rule or order or due to any rash or negligent act or omission, the offence under section 101 of the Act is committed. Under this section, it should be affirmatively proved that the act or omission did in fact endanger the safety of any person. It is not enough if it is merely shown that that the act or omission is likely to endanger the safety of any person. Whether the act is rash and negligent and might have resulted in endangering the safety of any person is a question of fact, which the Court has to consider in a charge under section 101 of the Act. 30. Whether the act is rash and negligent and might have resulted in endangering the safety of any person is a question of fact, which the Court has to consider in a charge under section 101 of the Act. 30. The State Prosecutor relied upon some decisions in support of his contention that the breach of the rule by A-1 namely, not getting the loop line point set even before the arrival of the Birur-Hubli passenger train for the crossing of the Deccan Express endangered the safety of the persons. In Emperor v. Ramachandra Hari1, the facts were that the station master received a goods train on the third line in his station yard. He then ordered the driver of the goods train to detach his engine and shunt 9 waggons which were standing on the loop line to a dead end siding in order to make room for the down mail. At that time the next station on the other side asked the accused for line clear in order to pass an up-passenger train, which the accused gave at once. The 9 waggons were shunted from the loop to the main line, and while they were being taken from the main line to the dead end siding, one of the waggons got derailed at the points where the siding joined the main line. At this time the distant and home danger signals were up against the up-passenger train. Still the driver of that train disregarded both signals and dashed into the derailed waggon, causing some injury to two of the passengers and the guard. On these facts, the station master was tried under section 101 of the Act for breach of Rules 99(c) and 100 of the General Rules. Scott, C.J. who delivered the judgment observed: “There can be no doubt that the two chief causes of the collision were the disregard by the driver of 16 up-passenger train of the danger signals and the existence on the main line of the derailed waggon. The derailment may have been caused by the negligent working of the points by Tatya Paddoo. But the waggon would not have been on the line at all but for the disregard by the station master of Rule 100. The object of the rule is to lessen the risk of accidents through shunting on a through life after line clear has been given. But the waggon would not have been on the line at all but for the disregard by the station master of Rule 100. The object of the rule is to lessen the risk of accidents through shunting on a through life after line clear has been given. The disregard of the rule enhances the danger to passengers. It is the risk thus entailed which renders the rule breaker liable to punishment.” In the course of his judgment it was observed: “The risk of the driver disregarding the signals is now considered by the Railway administration so remote as not to warrant the prohibition of shunting after line clear has been given at Kadabgaon. The best evidence of the actual risk involved in such an operation as that undertaken by the accused on the night of the 9th of August, is the conduct of the experts most capable of appreciating it. The offence of the accused in the light of these considerations cannot be regarded us deserving of various punishment.” The facts of the above case have no bearing on the instant case. 31. In Emperor v. Sheo Baran Singh2the facts were that the station master was negligent from the very beginning. He did not check signals and points on coming to duty, and also did not check the setting of the points. In that case the points had to be set to the loop line and accordingly they were set, but the slide of the points lever showed main. Walsh, J. who delivered the judgment pointed out: “The duty of a person in control of a railway station is first to give the fundamental orders regulating the arrival of a train and secondly, to see that they were accurately carried out. Where such an order was given to set the points to the loop but the slides showed main the failure to act upon a defect in the working of the machinery is an act of grave negligence. Omitting to set the points, which would prevent a train after a clear line signal is given, from running into another train is an act of endangering the safety of the persons in either of the two trains.” That was a case where it was established that the signals had been lowered down. That has no application to the present case. 32. That has no application to the present case. 32. In Local Government v. Har Pershad1the facts that gave rise to the prosecution of the station master under section 101 of the Act were that on the night between the 10th and 11th of September, 1913, assistant station master Har Pershad was on duty. At 45 minutes past mid-night No. 551 Down passenger train arrived from the Saugor side and was duly shunted on to line No. 1 halting at the platform. This train was still there at 3-5 a.m. when No. 554 Up Mixed Train arrived from Katni. Line No. 1 being occupied, it was necessary that this later arrival should stop on the main line. The assistant station master in disobedience to a rule requiring him to see personally to the setting of points for all incoming and outgoing trains carrying passengers including ballast trains, went out and saw that points 14 and 15 were both locked against No. 554, so that it could not leave the main line. The train obeyed the arrangement and pulled upon on the main line. It now became practicable for No. 551 to continue its journey towards Katni and it was necessary to make one change only, namely, to unlock point 14, not in order to shunt the train from the platform line to the main line, but to protect the point from injury. Once more the rule required the assistant station master on duty personally to see that the points were correctly set. But the assistant station master fell into a very common form of neglect. He had a few minutes previously seen points 14 and 15 locked. It was only necessary to unlock No. 14 for the protection of the point. He gave the keys of points 14, 15 and other points to the Mokaddam, who in turn passed them on to the pointsman. Instead of unlocking No. 14, the pointsman unlocked No. 15. The train started and got on to the main line. Seeing that it was going to the dead end, which would have resulted in an accident, the driver smartly applied his brake before the terminus. Instead of unlocking No. 14, the pointsman unlocked No. 15. The train started and got on to the main line. Seeing that it was going to the dead end, which would have resulted in an accident, the driver smartly applied his brake before the terminus. On these facts, Stanyon, A.J.C., held that in every case where a travelling railway train is unexpectedly shunted on to a wrong line by an erroneous laying of the points in a station yard, the safety of persons in the train are about the yard is endangered within the meaning of that term in section 101 of the Act and if the error in the points is due to such disobedience as is referred to in the enactment, an offence punishable thereunder is committed. Incidentally, he pointed out that no safe analogy can be drawn from the facts of one case to decide whether in another case danger has arisen. Every case must be judged according to its own facts. 33. Reliance was also placed on the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranjit Kumar2. In that case as per the direction of the station master points had been set correctly to receive the train. After that was done the pointsman returned the key and signal was given. Thereafter, the points thus set were interfered with and the line was re-set in such a way that the train got on line No. 1 instead of line No. 3, even when the train from the down side was standing on line No. 1. It was held that the station master had disobeyed. Rule 37(2) by not keeping the keys properly locked in the key-board with the key of the Board in his personal possession, thereby enabling another man to interfere with the points already set. Dealing with the facts of that case, it was held that in whatever manner the pointsman got the key, the station master must be held negligent and must be held to have disobeyed the rules unless it was found that there was any force or fraud used against him. The facts of this case also have no bearing on the case on hand. 34. The last case or which reliance was placed was in The State v. Kanhaiya Lal1. The facts of this case also have no bearing on the case on hand. 34. The last case or which reliance was placed was in The State v. Kanhaiya Lal1. The facts in that case were that one Kanhiya Lal was the Assistant Station-master and another person by name Hanuman was the pointsman on the relevant date at Nau Railway station. They were on duty at about 11-15 p.m. when a collision between down Goods train No. 1180 which was standing on line No. 2 and Up Express passenger train, No. 321 which was arriving at the railway station was averted by the prompt action of the driver of the passenger train in applying the brakes and stopping it within 105 yards of the goods train. The Assistant Station-master handed over the key to the pointsman and sent him to point No. 1. The pointsman revested the setting of the point No. 1 and gave ‘alright’ signal to the Assistant Station-master, who lowered the up signal with the result the passenger train which was being received, was diverted to the main line instead, of being diverted to the platform loop. In that case it was pointed out; “There can be no question that in every case, where a travelling train is actually diverted to a wrong line on which there is another train standing, the safety of the persons in the two trains is endangered within the meaning of section 101 of the Railways Act. In such a case, if the error is due to disobedience of any rule or order or due to any rash or negligent act or omission, an offence under section 101 is committed. This position is not affected even though a collision is averted by the prompt action of the driver of the incoming train in applying the brakes and stopping the train before it could collide with the standing train.” This decision, again, has no bearing on the facts of the present case. 35. No safe analogy can be drawn from the facts of one case to decide whether in another case danger has arisen. Every case must be judged according to its own facts. In the cases mentioned above, wrong signals had been given without setting the points. In such cases, the safety of persons in the train was held to be endangered within the meaning of section 101 of the Act. Every case must be judged according to its own facts. In the cases mentioned above, wrong signals had been given without setting the points. In such cases, the safety of persons in the train was held to be endangered within the meaning of section 101 of the Act. But in the instant case, as stated earlier, there is no satisfactory evidence that the down home signal and the outer signal had been lowered. It is not disputed in this case that the points for the loop line for the Deccan Express to pass through had not been set. The pointsman should have set the points properly. The evidence in this case is conflicting as to who exactly was the pointsman who was to operate the points at the relevant time. The evidence points out that it was P.W. 4 that was on duty, but as stated by A-1 and the prosecution A-3 was asked to do that duty. From the evidence of P.W. 4 himself it could be gathered that in all probability, he was to work at the down main point and he was the man who could have set the points. But if the cane of the prosecution is accepted, A-3 had hardly any time to set the points and it might be that by the time he could set the points, the Deccan Express passed the signals at danger and collided with the Birur-Hubli Passenger train. It is suggested by the accused to P.W. 12 that he came 10 minutes earlier to the scheduled time. Of course, he has denied the suggestion. The prosecution case is that the collision took place at 10-35 p.m. The persons who came immediately after the collision have given the time. But the best evidence that was available for the prosecution has not been produced in this case. The Deccan Express engine had been provided with an instrument called Tachograph, otherwise called “Tell Tale Clock”. After the collision, if one or the other officer who came to the station must have looked into the instrument to find out the speed and time of the Deccan Express at the time of the collision. Even thereafter, the instrument must have been available for the officers concerned, from which they could have ascertained he time of collision and the speed at which it was running. Even thereafter, the instrument must have been available for the officers concerned, from which they could have ascertained he time of collision and the speed at which it was running. If, as suggested by the defence, the Deccan Express came at a great speed than it was expected under the circumstances, and also came earlier than the scheduled time, then inspite of the fact that A-1 had not got the points set to the loop line, and if the down home signal and the outer signal had not been lowered, the driver of the Deccan Express disregarded the rule and passed the signals at danger resulting in the collision. 36. One other circumstance which shows that the signals could not have been lowered is that P.W. 12 himself asked P.W. 1 who went to see him immediately after the collision where he was and whether he could not have seen the signals regarding the line given to his train. It is clear from this admission of P.W. 12 that even though he was seriously injured, he made enquiries with P.W. 1 whether he had seen the signals being given to his train. Taking into consideration the broad probabilities in this case, it appears to me that the signals had not been lowered down and in spite of that P.W. 12 passed the signals at danger resulting in the accident. At any rate, considerable doubt arises on the story of the prosecution. 37. The accused, particularly A-1, never intended by not complying with the rules to endanger the safety of the persons in the two trains when he knew that he had given clearance to the Deccan Express only upto to the outer signals. When the home signal and the outer signal to the loop line were not given by any one of the accused, that is sufficient to indicate that they never intended to endanger the safety of persons much less would A-1 have anticipated that the driver of the Deccan Express would pass the signals at danger. 38. When the home signal and the outer signal to the loop line were not given by any one of the accused, that is sufficient to indicate that they never intended to endanger the safety of persons much less would A-1 have anticipated that the driver of the Deccan Express would pass the signals at danger. 38. Although there is no presumption that a person intends what is merely a possible result of his action or a result which, though reasonably certain, is not known to him to be so, still it must be presumed that when a man voluntarily does an act knowing at the time that in the natural course of events a certain result would follow, he intends to bring about that result. In this case, by no stretch of imagination could it be said that the accused did any act voluntarily, which in the normal course of events would have resulted in the collision. In all cases of this nature, it could be said as a universal principle that when a man is charged with doing an act-a wrongful act-without any legal justification of which the probable consequence may be highly injurious, the intention is an inference of law resulting from doing the act. It is impossible to draw an inference in this case that the accused did any wrongful act without any justification, which resulted in the collision. 39. The theory advanced by the prosecution was that the accused were responsible for the collision as one or the other of them was responsible for lowering the signal, giving clearance to the Deccan Express to pass through the main line, which collided with the Birur-Hubli passenger train resulting in the death of number of persons and therefore they are liable to be punished under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. Section 304-A is attracted to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability would cause death. It only applies to such cases as are rash or negligent and directly the cause of death of another person. 40. The rash or negligent act mentioned in the section means the act which is the immediate cause of death and not any act or omission which can at the most be said to be a remote cause of death. It only applies to such cases as are rash or negligent and directly the cause of death of another person. 40. The rash or negligent act mentioned in the section means the act which is the immediate cause of death and not any act or omission which can at the most be said to be a remote cause of death. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act, which is opposed to a deliberate act, but also includes an act which, though it may be said to be deliberate, is yet done without due deliberation and caution. 41. Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with knowledge that it is so and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Negligence is the genus of which rashness is a species. In otherwords, it must have been the cause causans, it is not enough that it may have been cause sine qua non. If the prosecution had established that the signals of the home line had been lowered, then they could have successfully contended that the accused were liable to be punished under section 304-A. In this case, as already stated, on that crucial question, no satisfactory evidence has been adduced. On the other hand, the circumstances point out that the signals had not been given and the Deccan Express crossed the signals at danger, as a result of which the collision occurred. 42. Even assuming for the sake of argument that A-1 committed breach of the rules and the other accused did not act according to his directions, they cannot be made liable under section 304-A on the facts of this case. However, the State Prosecutor relied upon a decision in Queen Empress v. Nand Kishore1. In that case the facts proved were that the accused, who was a sub-store keeper at the Muttra station was in charge of six trucks to convey coolies across the river. However, the State Prosecutor relied upon a decision in Queen Empress v. Nand Kishore1. In that case the facts proved were that the accused, who was a sub-store keeper at the Muttra station was in charge of six trucks to convey coolies across the river. On the line leading to the bridge, there was a steep incline, and in disregard of the explicit instructions given to him he carried out the duty with negligence, in that he did not uncouple the trucks so as to convey them singly, but allowed them to be sent down the incline coupled together and with an insufficient number of coolies in charge of them, and without ropes necessary to hold them back in going down the incline. In consequence they got out of control, and in their course, one of the coolies, who, under orders of the petitioner, was endeavouring to stop them, slipped under the wheels and was run over and killed. It was held that the death of the coolies was due to the negligence of the accused within the meaning of section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 43. Another case that was cited is the decision in Tapti Prasad v. Emperor2. In that case, the Assistant Station-master, who was charged under section 304-A, gave a ‘line clear’ to an incoming passenger train on a foggy night with the knowledge that a goods train was standing at a particular point where the passenger train might collide with it, but hoping to remove the goods train to a siding before the arrival of the passenger train. The goods train was not removed in time and a collision occurred which was attended with loss of life. It was ruled in that case that the Assistant Station-master was guilty of a rash and negligent act in giving the ‘line clear’ and was therefore punishable under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. 44. Yet another case relied upon was the one in Woodward v. Emperor3In that case the crown plates of the boiler were badly corroded and some of them completely gone. The crown plate had been ripped open causing an explosion in the fire box with the result that the boiler had been blown off. The accused was employed as a boiler maker at the shed where the engine had been kept. The crown plate had been ripped open causing an explosion in the fire box with the result that the boiler had been blown off. The accused was employed as a boiler maker at the shed where the engine had been kept. It was his duty to have periodical inspection of the boilers of the engines housed at the shed. He did not inspect the boiler of the engine. At that place, 8 engines had been housed. The boiler of the locomotive engine exploded and was blown off, causing damage to life and property. It was contended that the accused, for not stopping the boiler from work, had only made an error of judgment. Negativing that contention it was held that he was negligent and therefore he could not get the benefit of error of judgment when he exercised none. The facts in the decisions cited above were different from the instant case and therefore they are not helpful to the prosecution. 45. A-1 was a responsible Assistant Station-master with experience behind him. It is difficult to conceive that he would not have issued instructions to A-3 or any one, probably P.W. 4, not to set the points to the loop line for the Deccan Express to pass through, when he had asked P.W. 5 Biddadeppa to set the points at Savanur side. Assuming that the person, who was deputed, did not set the points to the loop line, as is the case here, it is inconceivable that A-1 gave wrong key to A-2 asking him to lower down the home signal. Even if he did so, A-2 could not have low;red down the home signal because the levers had been locked with padlocks and block collars. The evidence in his:ase shows that A-2 was all along on the platform and no one except one witness stated that A-2 was holding the lever and having held it, he put back the lever to the normal position. If the points had not been set to the loop line even if he pulled the lever for that line, the signal would not have been lowered down. In any view of the matter, the facts of this case show that no signal could have been lowered down the home signal and consequently the outer signal could not have been lowered down. In any view of the matter, the facts of this case show that no signal could have been lowered down the home signal and consequently the outer signal could not have been lowered down. Taking into consideration the broad probabilities and the evidence of the driver and the guard of the Deccan Express, it is extremely difficult to believe that the home signal to the main line or the outer signal had been lowered clown. The difficulty becomes more greater when we take into consideration the attending circumstances namely the home signal for the main line could not have been lowered down, much less the signal for the loop line. It becomes much more difficult to believe the prosecution story when we take into consideration the evidence of the driver that he did not see anybody at the gate or he green signal near the down home point. It becomes still more difficult to believe that the driver of the Deccan Express could not see the headlight of the Birur-Hubli passenger train until he came very close to it, when the evidence is that the head-light was on. Before one could reach Yelavigi station, from the side of Gudgeri there is a concave curve. If the driver, as stated by him, had put his head on the right side of the Deccan Express, it is difficult to believe that he could not have been the Birur-Hubli passenger train standing on the main line. Therefore, the only rational explanation is that the three persons, namely, the accused could not have committed such serious mistakes when they knew that the main line was occupied. It was probable that the driver of the Deccan Express, as could be made out came with great speed earlier than the scheduled time and while entering the home point, without seeing the signals, must have crossed the signals at danger which resulted in the disaster that followed. 46. It was contended by Sri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for accused No. 1 Sri Santhosh Hegde, the learned Counsel for accused No. 2 and Sri Farooq, the learned Counsel for accused No. 3, that the material placed by the prosecution on record will not conclusively prove the charges against them and on the other hand, the proved facts point out that it was due to the negligence of the driver of the Deccan Express that the accident happened. Of course the accused have taken up contradictory defence and have not precisely set up that it was due to the negligence of the driver of the Deccan Express that the collision took place. Merely because the accused have not properly explained how the collision took place and merely because A-1 has thrown the blame on A-2, who in turn has thrown the blame on A-3, a case cannot be made out against them when the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself exonerates them. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had admitted their guilt. If it were so, that would have been a different matter altogether. Their statements, in no way, amount to an admission, but on the other hand, each one has pleaded that he was not guilty. 47. As already stated, the crucial question in a prosecution under section 101 of the Act of a Station-master in connection with the collision that occurred at his station, is whether the signals had in fact been found lowered. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Awadh Behari Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh1. The accused in that case was the acting Station-master of Chatera railway station. Chatera Station was a non-interlocked station. The outlying stations on each side were Sagoni and Bandakpur. Up trains were being received from Sagoni and down trains from Bandakpur. The station had one main line and two loop lines. The accused was acting station-master on duty at the relevant time. A ballast train had first arrived and was standing on the outer loop line. A double-headed goods train, arrived thereafter at Chatera and was admitted from Sagoni side on the inner loop line, which was adjacent to the main line. Almost immediately after the arrival of this train, another double-headed goods train steamed in from Bandakpur side into the same inner loop line and there was a head-on collision with the previously arrived goods train which by then had become stationary. Almost immediately after the arrival of this train, another double-headed goods train steamed in from Bandakpur side into the same inner loop line and there was a head-on collision with the previously arrived goods train which by then had become stationary. The defence of the accused was that when the double-headed goods train steamed in, both the home and the outer signals on the down side were at danger and not lowered down but that the driver of the train rushed into the station at excessive speed without noticing that the signals had not been lowered for reception of the train into the station. After the goods train came from the Sagoni side and was received in the inner loop line, the points at the down side also had been set so as to connect the main beyond the points with this loop line. It meant that the signals on the down side at that time would remain at danger. The controversy was whether when the points having been re-set on the down side for reception of the down train into the main, the signals on the down side had been lowered prematurely resulting in the down train getting straight into the inner loop line instead of to the main line. The down train which collided with the double-headed goods train arrived five minutes before time. The question arose whether in fact the station-master was negligent and failed to observe the rules by getting the signals on the down side lowered for the reception of the down train without getting the points on down side re-set from the inner loop line to the main line. It was found that it was mechanically impossible to lower down the home signal. The Supreme Court pointed out that assuming however, that in some unexplained way the levers on the down side were found to have been lowered at the very time of the collision, this does not necessarily mean that the negligence is to be attributed to the station-master. It was not disputed that the actual physical act of lowering down was to be done not by the station-master. It was not his job, but that of the signalman, who had been acquitted. It was not disputed that the actual physical act of lowering down was to be done not by the station-master. It was not his job, but that of the signalman, who had been acquitted. The Supreme Court went on to say that there was absolutely no indication in the evidence that he had by then received instructions from the station-master to lower the down side signals or had received the necessary keys from him to enable him to operate the down side signals. Proceeding further, the Supreme Court observed that if the evidence on the prosecution side was true and if the lowering was due to any negligence, there was no reason why that negligence should be attributed to the station-master and not to somebody else such as the pointsman. It held that the station-master could not be convicted on the basis of an assumption relating to such crucial matter. Ultimately it pointed out that in view of the clear excessive speed with which the driver of the double-headed goods train brought it into the station, it was more likely than not that the accident was due to the driver having failed to notice the signals and held that the prosecution had failed to adduce evidence on the most crucial point and it must therefore be held that charge had not been brought home to the accused. 48. In Shankar Balkrishna v. King Emperor1, the facts were these: The Bengal-Nagpur Railway was worked on the “line clear and caution message” system no train being allowed to leave a station without a ‘line clear’ certificate in the prescribed form, to the effect that the lime was clear up to the next station. The petitioner therein, the Assistant station master of Gomharria Station who was on duty and busy issuing tickets to passengers, wrote out in the prescribed form book the following conditional line clear message, although he had received no message from Sini Station: “on arrival of 15 Down passenger at Gomharria, line will be cleared for No. 80 Up goods train from Gomharria to Sini.” All the particulars required by the rule were not filled in, no number was entered on it, nor was the time of arrival of the train filled in. The form-book was left in the stationmaster’s room. The form-book was left in the stationmaster’s room. The guard of No. 80 Up goods train which was waiting at Gomharria entered the stationmaster’s room in his absence, took the imperfect certificate out of the book and with out reading it appended his signature, passed it on to the driver and gave the signal for the train to start all without the knowledge of the petitioner. The result was a collision between the 15 Down passenger train and the 80 Up goods train, causing the death of several persons. On these facts, the station-master was convicted under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and section 101 of the Act. Held: that the act of the petitioner did not in itself endanger the safety of other persons and that the effect was too remote to be attributable to such a cause. 49. In Bhagwan Das v. Emperor2, the station-master of a wayside station, after seeing the green light at second point and receiving an ‘all right’ signal allowed a goods train to pass over the loop line, even though the main line was dear. The second point in the line was not properly adjusted and due to this, the train collided with other trucks. Considerable damage was done and driver and certain persons on the train sustained injuries. In that case it was held that: “Even though according to rules the station-master must be satisfied that the points were correctly set before he allowed the train to pass over the loop line, this did not mean that the stationmaster himself must go and see the points that they were properly set. He had to trust the pointsman and the practice was to receive a signal from [the points man before allowing the train to pass. Under the above circumstances the station-master did nothing to endanger the safety of any person. The mere act of switching the train on to the loop line did not of itself endanger the life of any person and as such he was not guilty of offence under section 101.” 50. The safety of a person is endangered within the meaning of section 101 of the Act whenever anything designed to protect the same is removed or destroyed wilfully or by negligence. Conditional line clear was given by A-1 to Gudgeri station that he was prepared to receive the Deccan Express up to the outer signal. The safety of a person is endangered within the meaning of section 101 of the Act whenever anything designed to protect the same is removed or destroyed wilfully or by negligence. Conditional line clear was given by A-1 to Gudgeri station that he was prepared to receive the Deccan Express up to the outer signal. Assuming; for the sake of argument that the points for the loop line at the facing point were not set according to the rules before the arrival of the Birur-Hubli passenger train, for ore or the other reasons, A-1 had effective control-to stop the Deccan Express coming into the station by not giving the signal. If the signals either for the main line or for the loop line could not have been given due to the mechanical arrangement which existed in the station and the points not having been set to the loop lime at the facing point, A-1 or A-2 could not have operated the lever at the station to lower the home signal. Even assuming the case of the prosecution as true that A-3 came late and he was asked to go to the down main home point to set the points to the loop line, which was improbable under the circumstances, the fact remains that the point for the loop line was not set by any one. The question of A-1 observing whether the points had been set looking into the indicator going up the raised platform or seeing the vanishing light to find out whether proper signal had been lowered, did not arise at all. By the time action could be taken to divert the Deccan Express to the loop line, so that it could pass through the station on the loop line, the driver of the Deccan Express, namely, P.W. 12, in all probability must have come with great speed earlier to the scheduled time and passed the signals at danger. In such circumstances how could A-1 be said to have endangered the safety of any one? If A-2 did not operate any lever at all, as he could not have done, A-3, assuming he was at the down home point, could not have lowered the outer signal. Therefore, any of the accused cannot be held liable for having endangered the safety of human lives and having acted rashly or negligently. If A-2 did not operate any lever at all, as he could not have done, A-3, assuming he was at the down home point, could not have lowered the outer signal. Therefore, any of the accused cannot be held liable for having endangered the safety of human lives and having acted rashly or negligently. It appears to me to have been, and to have properly been, the intention of the Legislature to make only those acts or omissions offences which themselves led to certain serious results and to leave all subsidiary acts or omissions to be dealt with departmentally. 51. Before parting with this case, I would like to thank Mr. D.V. Venkatesh (P.W. 22), Divisional Operating Superintendent, Southern Railways at Mysore and Mr. H.K. Manjunatha (P.W. 9), Senior Signal and Telecommunication Engineer, Headquarters at Madras, who were of great assistance in demonstrating how the signalling system was in vogue at Yelavigi station at the relevant time and apprising of the operation of the signalling system. 52. For the reasons stated above, I allow these appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences passed against the accused, namely, A-1, A-2, and A-3 and acquit them. 53. The State has filed Criminal Petitions Nos. 137 and 138 of 1971 for enhancement of sentence passed against A-2 and A-3. In view of my finding in the appeals these petitions do not survive and accordingly they are rejected. S.V.S. ----- Appeals allowed; petitions dismissed.