ORAL ORDER This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna, Patna Bench, Patna in Case No. OA 00029 of 2002, whereby the claim case has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the matter briefly stated is that on 17.11.2001 the husband of the claimant, namely, Anup Chaurasiya was to board train no. 2312 Kalka-Howrah Mail from platform no. 3 at Sasaram railway station. It is stated that after purchasing a journey ticket, as the husband of the claimant was proceeding towards the station alongwith his cousin brother Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya, some identified persons tried to snatch his hand bag which contained the railway ticket and a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Upon resistance being shown by the husband of the claimant, he received gun shot injuries which resulted in his death during the course of treatment. Since according to the wife of the claimant the occurrence took place within the railway precincts, hence she filed the claim case in question and which has been dismissed by the order impugned inter alia on grounds that the alleged occurrence took place beyond the railway precincts and thus the claimant was not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 3. The only issue thus posed before this Court is whether the alleged incident which resulted in the death of the husband of the claimant, took place within the railway precincts or beyond that. If the answer to the issue posed is in the affirmative i.e. it took place within the railway precincts then the claimant has a case in her favour and if it has taken place beyond the railway precincts then she is not entitled for any compensation. 4. Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel has appeared for the claimant as an appellant before this Court and Mr. Anil Singh learned counsel has appeared for the respondent railways. 5. It is the case of the claimant that when the deceased alongwith his cousin brother, namely, Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya was on the approach road heading towards the station, he was shot at by the criminals who also robbed him of his belongings. Anil Singh learned counsel has appeared for the respondent railways. 5. It is the case of the claimant that when the deceased alongwith his cousin brother, namely, Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya was on the approach road heading towards the station, he was shot at by the criminals who also robbed him of his belongings. The claimant led nine exhibits in support of her claim of which exhibit A/1 is the affidavit of the cousin brother of the deceased, namely, Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya who has explained the sequence of events and has submitted that the deceased was going to Kolkata for purchasing betel in the course of his business and was carrying Rs. 40,000/- in cash in a bag which also contained his journey ticket and other papers. It is stated on affidavit by the said Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya who is the eye witness to the occurrence that as they were proceeding towards the platform, two unknown criminals surrounded them and tried to snatch the hand bag which was protested by the deceased and whereupon they opened fire which hit the deceased on his abdomen and resulted in his death during the course of treatment. It is stated that the criminals having snatched the bag, fled away. An FIR was instituted immediately giving rise to Sasaram Government Rail P.S. Case No. 105 of 2001. 6. Exhibit A/2 is the affidavit of the claimant who has reiterated the same position. 7. Exhibit A/3 is the copy of the FIR in Sasaram Rail P.S. Case No. 105 of 2001 and mentions the place of occurrence at a distance of 600 gaj from the police station. 8. Exhibit A/4 is the fard beyan of the eye witness-cousin brother of the deceased, namely, Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya which forms part of the FIR. 9. Exhibit A/5 is the post mortem report which supports the incident and the statement of the informant. 10. Exhibit A/6 is the medical certification of S.S. Hospital, B.H.U., Varanasi. 11. Exhibit A/7 is the newspaper report of the incident; and 12. Exhibit A/8 is the extract of the case diary containing the final report submitted by the rail police. 13. The claimant led herself as applicant witness no. 2 and has also examined the eye witness Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya as applicant witness no. 1. 14. 11. Exhibit A/7 is the newspaper report of the incident; and 12. Exhibit A/8 is the extract of the case diary containing the final report submitted by the rail police. 13. The claimant led herself as applicant witness no. 2 and has also examined the eye witness Ajit Kumar Chaurasiya as applicant witness no. 1. 14. The respondent railways on their part led no evidence to contest the claim and except filing a one page written statement before the tribunal, there was practically no contest. The written statement is a part of the record and contains formal objections on the issue of untoward incident and on the issue of bona fide passenger. The railways merely shifting the onus on the claimant to prove the untoward incident, did not bother to examine the claimant on her claim. 15. The tribunal on the basis of pleadings framed four issues which are as follows:- 1. Whether the claim application of the applicant is maintainable? 2. Whether the deceased was a victim to the alleged untoward incident and whether the alleged untoward incident is covered under Section 123(c) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989? 3. Whether the deceased, Anup Chourasia @ Anup Kumar was a bonafide passenger of Train No. 2312 Dn. on 17.11.2001 at the time of the alleged untoward incident? 4. Whether the applicant/dependants of the deceased are entitled to receive compensation, as claimed for? 16. Of the four issues framed, issue nos. 2 and 3 are the most relevant and has been discussed together by the tribunal and the tribunal upon interpretation of the word „precinct? as occurring in Section 123(c) (1) of the Act, has held that the incident took place beyond the railway precincts and that the claimant applicant was resorting to a series of lies to bring the case within the provisions of Section 123 of the Act. The Technical Member forming the bench, finding fault with the statement recorded by the police constituting the FIR and the over writing appearing thereon has held the same to be a „sham? and recorded with an intent to derive undue advantage. The Technical Member forming the bench, finding fault with the statement recorded by the police constituting the FIR and the over writing appearing thereon has held the same to be a „sham? and recorded with an intent to derive undue advantage. Even in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the statement of the claimant that the ticket of the deceased was in the same bag which was snatched by the criminals, has been held to be an afterthought simply on grounds that it does not find mention in the FIR. The Technical Member has further disregarded the evidence of the eye witness on absurdity of having prior information regarding the arrival of the train on the particular platform. The observation of the Technical Member that the claim was motivated simply on account of the fact that even when the claimant stated that the bag contained money and papers, there is no discussion as regarding the luggage, is preposterous because of its irrelevancy with the dispute. The Technical Member in the process of rejecting the claim case has adorned the role of an investigator and despite absence of any contest from the railways, the figurative details has been worked out by the Technical Member himself. The Technical Member thus doubting the oral evidence; rejecting the documentary evidence inter alia on grounds of interpolation and while holding that the place of occurrence was beyond the railway precincts, also held that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and dismissed the claim case. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant is in appeal. 17. Apart from the evidence led before the tribunal several set of pleadings have been filed before this Court by the claimant as well as by the respondent Railways in support of their respective contentions on the issue of place of occurrence and whether it took place within the railway precincts. 18. It is the contention of Mr. Krishna Mohan Murari appearing for the claimant that it is only when an untoward incident would take place within the railway precincts that the railway police becomes authorized to investigate into the matter and not when the occurrence takes place beyond the railway precincts in which case the district police would have jurisdiction to investigate into the matter. Krishna Mohan Murari appearing for the claimant that it is only when an untoward incident would take place within the railway precincts that the railway police becomes authorized to investigate into the matter and not when the occurrence takes place beyond the railway precincts in which case the district police would have jurisdiction to investigate into the matter. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon certain information supplied by the railway police, Sasaram placed at Annexure- 1 and 2 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 21.10.2013 and in which it has been categorically accepted by the Officer in Charge-cum-Public Information Officer, Rail Police Station, Sasaram that the rail police is only authorized to investigate into matters occurring within the railway precincts and that the approach road falls within the railway precincts. Learned counsel has also placed on record another affidavit containing certain photographs in support of the claim that the approach road on which the occurrence took place, was within the railway precincts. 19. As observed earlier a shoddy one page written statement was filed by the railways before the tribunal in which except for shifting the onus on the claimant to prove her case, no other plea was taken. In fact no evidence, either oral or documentary, was led by them before the tribunal to contest the claim. Such lacuna however was sought to be removed by filing an exhaustive counter affidavit before this Court relying upon the observations of the tribunal to reject the claim case. Paragraph 7 to 10 of the counter affidavit merely seeks to reiterate the view expressed by the tribunal to reject the claim case on the anvil of the occurrence taking place beyond the railway precincts. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 21. Paragraph 7 to 10 of the counter affidavit merely seeks to reiterate the view expressed by the tribunal to reject the claim case on the anvil of the occurrence taking place beyond the railway precincts. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 21. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 defines “untoward incident” and runs as follows:- “123(c) “untoward incident” means- (1) (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 or robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, “by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.” 22. As I have indicated hereinabove the only issue that is posed for consideration before this Court is whether the occurrence took place within the railway precincts or whether the claimant is trying to derive undue advantage for the occurrence which in fact took place beyond the railway precincts. 23. The death by gun shot injury suffered by the deceased at the hands of the criminals is not in dispute and the registration of the police case as well as the final report submitted by them fully corroborate this fact. The case was not only registered by the rail police rather was also investigated by them and the final report led as Exhibit- A/8 specifically reports the place of occurrence to be falling within the railway precincts. Although affidavits and counter affidavits have been filed by the parties to contest each other but this Court does not intend to delve into the intricacies thereof. Suffice it to say that the rail police registered the case, investigated into it and submitted a final report supporting the incident as also the fact that it fell within railway precincts. The tribunal apparently was trying to read into the word “precinct” by referring to the meaning given thereof in the Oxford Dictionary but in the process has given only a part reproduction of the dictionary meaning. The tribunal apparently was trying to read into the word “precinct” by referring to the meaning given thereof in the Oxford Dictionary but in the process has given only a part reproduction of the dictionary meaning. There are four explanations to the word “precinct” as found in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the meaning reproduced by the tribunal is only one of them. The word “precinct” as per the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary also means “a part of a city that has its own police station; the police station in this area.” Meaning thereby that the word “precinct” would not only include the area around a place or a building enclosed by a wall but also that area having its own police station. The said aspect becomes even more eloquent from the provisions of the Railway (Notices and Inquiries into Accidents) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) framed under Section 122 of the Act. 24. Rule 23 of the Rules relates to police investigation and empowers the Railway Police to make investigation leading to any accident in the course of working in the railway. 25. Rule 24 of the Rules provides for the status of the police officer investigating the case. 26. Rule 25 provides for notice of police investigation to the Railway Administration and the Divisional Railway Manager. 27. Rule 26 relates to assistance taken by the Railway Police from the District Police and reads as under:- “26. Assistance by the District Police.- (1) In every case to which Rule 24 applies, immediate information shall be given by the railway Police of the area to the District Police. Who, if so, required, shall afford all necessary assistance and shall, if occasion arises, carry the investigation beyond the limits of the railway premises. But the Railway Police of the area shall primarily be responsible for carrying on the investigation within such limits. (2) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the further prosecution of the case, on the conclusion of the police investigation, shall rest with the Railway Police.” Rule 28 relates to the circumstances in which the District Police would discharge the duties of the Railway Police which runs as under:- “28. (2) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the further prosecution of the case, on the conclusion of the police investigation, shall rest with the Railway Police.” Rule 28 relates to the circumstances in which the District Police would discharge the duties of the Railway Police which runs as under:- “28. District Police to discharge duties of Railway Police.-Where there is no Railway Police in the area, the duties imposed by Rules 23, 24 and 25 sub-rule (2) of Rule 26, and Rule 27 on the Railway Police of the area, or on the Head of such Railway Police, shall be discharged by the District Police or by the District Superintendent of Police, as the case may be.” 29. The issue thus posed at the outset and the confusion whatsoever, stands clarified by the rules referred to above particularly Rules 26 and 28 which explicitly provides that it is the Railway Police alone, who shall investigate into any untoward incident occurring within the railway area and that it is only in circumstances where there is no Railway Police for such area that the District Police is empowered to investigate. In fact Rule 26 has also taken into note the contingency arising in case an investigation is to extend beyond the railway area and in which circumstance the Railway Police has been vested with the powers to take assistance of the District Police but while providing as such, the primary responsibility of investigation within the limits of the railway area has been cast upon the Railway Police. 30. In view of the discussion hereinabove, it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the alleged occurrence which led to the death of the husband of the claimant was within the railway precinct because had the untoward incident taken place beyond the railway area, it would be the District Police, who would have investigated into the case and not the railway police. 31. In the circumstances set forth above, it was wholly unwarranted for the Technical Member to have ventured into the intricacies of the oral and documentary evidence on a fault finding mission. A mere over writing on some document would not in all circumstances mean an attempt to mislead especially when the incident speaks for itself. 31. In the circumstances set forth above, it was wholly unwarranted for the Technical Member to have ventured into the intricacies of the oral and documentary evidence on a fault finding mission. A mere over writing on some document would not in all circumstances mean an attempt to mislead especially when the incident speaks for itself. Even when it is the case of the claimant that the ticket also got robbed in the process, merely because such statement does not find mention in the FIR, the tribunal has rejected it to be an afterthought. It is obvious that the deceased was not doing a garden walk within the railway precincts carrying his hand bag containing money and for nothing he was shot dead. 32. Even when the provisions of Section 124A read with Section 123(c) is a beneficial piece of legislation, this Court time without number has experienced that the tribunal even in absence of any meaningful opposition by the railways, have adorned such responsibility themselves. It is not the duty of a statutory body performing quasi judicial functions to find lacuna in a matter and take over the role of a prosecutor itself. 33. A death within a railway precincts would presumed to be a case of untoward incident unless proved to the contrary by the railways, by leading evidence in support. In the present case inspite of nine evidences led by the claimant to support her claim and without any contest thereto by the railways, the technical member forming the Bench has passed the impugned order by pinpointing faults in the claim case without bothering to examine the incident in the backdrop of the relevant „rules? referred to above. 34. For the reasons aforementioned, the order impugned cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside. The claim application is allowed together with interest quantified at 9 per cent payable from the date of filing of the claim case until its realization. The payment of the compensation alongwith interest should be made within three months of the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 35. Let the Lower Court Records received in connection with Case No. OA00029 of 2002 be returned to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna, Patna Bench, Patna forthwith. 36. This appeal is allowed.