# Annu Tandon & Ors v. State

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 69
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/annu-tandon-ors-v-state-49104
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 357 & 359 -
appeal under Section 374(2) r.w. Section
389
-
Appeals
from
conviction
-
Suspension
of
sentence
pending
the
appeal; release of appellant on bail - The
Railways Act, 1989 - Section 174 -
Obstructing running of train, etc,, Section
174(a) - by squatting or picketing or
during any rail roko agitation or bandh -
Even if a peaceful agitation/protest can
lead to obstruction of running of any train
by squatting or picketing or during any
Rail Roko Agitation or bandh - same would
amount to an offence under Section
174(a) of the Railways Act. (Para -28)

Appellants - leading protest along with 150-200
Congress workers - having Party flags &
banners - standing on railway track - on date,
time and place of the incident - slow down train
- stop train near railway over bridge - several
persons/Congress workers climbed on engine of
train - persuaded to come down from engine -
railway track cleared - train move - train got
detained for 15 minutes - prosecution led
cogent and credible evidence - protesters
staged protest on railway track and stopped
train - not a ''Rail Roko' Agitation - incident
would amount to picketing . (Para -27 )

(B) Constitution of India - Article 19 -
right to protest, is part of fundamental
rights - rights for demonstration, agitation
and staging protest - not an absolute right
- subject to reasonable restriction - not
permitted to violate a law enacted by the
legislation while exercising their right of
protest,
freedom
of
speech
and
expression. (Para - 30)

HELD:-Offence
under
Section
174(a)
of
Railways
Act
clearly
established
against
appellants. Trial court not committed any error
of law or jurisdiction or evidence in convicting
for offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways
Act.
Sentence
of
two
years
of
simple
imprisonment, is excessive. Detaining train for
15 minutes, there was no damage to private
and public property by protesters by and large it
was a peaceful and symbolic protest. Judgement
and order passed modified to the extent that
appellants are sentenced with fine only.(Para -
29,30,31,32)

Criminal appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs U.O.I. &
anr. , (2018) 17 SCC 324

## Text

9 All. Annu Tandon & Ors. Vs. State
69
ascertain the whereabouts and identities of
other co-accused persons who are stated to
have accompanied the appellants. No effort
whatsoever
has
been
made
by
the
Investigating
Agency
to
recover
the
household items allegedly robbed in the said
incident.

22. The discrepancies indicated by the
learned Senior Counsel in the G.D. of
institution of crime (Ex.Ka-3) are vital as
none of the independent witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution. It is the
admitted fact that the instant case was
instituted in the absence of PW-3 S.I. Jagroop
Singh as he was busy in some other case and
he was entrusted the investigation after
institution at the police station, therefore, the
PW-3 is not the witness of the production of
the appellants at the police station. The only
other witness, who could have proved the
said production of accused-appellants by the
informant along with other persons of the
village, would have been the Constable 620
CP Amar Singh who has instituted the said
FIR at the police station and is also the
transcriber of the said G.D. However,
Constable Amar Singh has also not been
produced before the Court. Withholding of
these relevant witnesses does not help the
prosecution at all. The prosecution has to
prove its own case and has to stand on its
own legs. It is true that the instant case is not
of identification as the appellants were
known to the informant and other persons of
the locality but the factum of robbery is not
proved by the statements of PWs-1, 2 and 3
either. Withholding of material witnesses i.e.
seven in number does not help the
prosecution and categorically vitiates the
trial.

23. The delay in lodging of FIR has
proved fatal in this case as there was a
chowki barely 3 kilometers from the village
as admitted by the PW-1 in his crossexamination. This also shakes the very
version of the prosecution. The medical
examination of the informant after a delay of
one and a half day also falsifies its story.

24. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and perusing the
record of the court below, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Trial
Court
has
overlooked
the
aforesaid
discrepancies in the prosecution case. The
impugned judgement and order is found
devoid of merits and is liable to be set aside.

25. In view of the above, the appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgement and order
dated 5.3.1991 passed by Special Judge,
D.A.A. Kanpur Dehat in Special Sessions
Trial No.33 of 1990 (State Vs. Mohan Lal
and Another) is set aside.

26. The appellants Mohan Lal and
Sanjay Kumar need not surrender. Their bail
bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged.

27. Let a copy of this judgement along
with Lower Court Record be returned to the
court concerned forthwith for compliance. A
compliance report be also sent to this Court.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 69
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2021

Annu Tandon & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rohit Tripathi, Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqv

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mrs. Suniti Sachan, Shiv. P. Shukla

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 357 & 359 -
appeal under Section 374(2) r.w. Section
389
-
Appeals
from
conviction
-
Suspension
of
sentence
pending
the
appeal; release of appellant on bail - The
Railways Act, 1989 - Section 174 -
Obstructing running of train, etc,, Section
174(a) - by squatting or picketing or
during any rail roko agitation or bandh -
Even if a peaceful agitation/protest can
lead to obstruction of running of any train
by squatting or picketing or during any
Rail Roko Agitation or bandh - same would
amount to an offence under Section
174(a) of the Railways Act. (Para -28)

Appellants - leading protest along with 150-200
Congress workers - having Party flags &
banners - standing on railway track - on date,
time and place of the incident - slow down train
- stop train near railway over bridge - several
persons/Congress workers climbed on engine of
train - persuaded to come down from engine -
railway track cleared - train move - train got
detained for 15 minutes - prosecution led
cogent and credible evidence - protesters
staged protest on railway track and stopped
train - not a ''Rail Roko' Agitation - incident
would amount to picketing . (Para -27 )

(B) Constitution of India - Article 19 -
right to protest, is part of fundamental
rights - rights for demonstration, agitation
and staging protest - not an absolute right
- subject to reasonable restriction - not
permitted to violate a law enacted by the
legislation while exercising their right of
protest,
freedom
of
speech
and
expression. (Para - 30)

HELD:-Offence
under
Section
174(a)
of
Railways
Act
clearly
established
against
appellants. Trial court not committed any error
of law or jurisdiction or evidence in convicting
for offence under Section 174(a) of the Railways
Act.
Sentence
of
two
years
of
simple
imprisonment, is excessive. Detaining train for
15 minutes, there was no damage to private
and public property by protesters by and large it
was a peaceful and symbolic protest. Judgement
and order passed modified to the extent that
appellants are sentenced with fine only.(Para -
29,30,31,32)

Criminal appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs U.O.I. &
anr. , (2018) 17 SCC 324

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present appeal under Section
374(2) read with Section 389 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the appellants against the
judgement and order dated 18.3.2021
passed
by
the
Special
Judge,
MP/MLA/Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.19 in Session Case No.578 of 2020,
State Vs. Smt. Annu Tandon and others,
arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2017,
under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act,
1989, Police Station RPF Post, Unnao,
whereby the learned Special Judge has
convicted and sentenced the appellants
under Section 174 (a) of the Railways Act
with simple imprisonment for two years
and further under Sections 357 and 359
Cr.P.C. has imposed fine of Rs.25,000/- to
each appellant to be deposited with the
Railway administration and default of
payment of fine, one month additional
simple imprisonment.

2. The facts, in brief, are that a
complaint was filed by the RPF, PostUnnao stating that the Station Master,
Northern Railways, Unnao on 12.6.2017 at
around 11.42 AM gave information to the
RPF/GRP, Unnao that Train No.18191 UP
was stopped soon before it was about to
9 All. Annu Tandon & Ors. Vs. State
71
reach Platform No.2 by some protesters of
the Congress Party having flags and
banners in their hands. On the said
information, In-charge Inspector, Srinivas
Mishra along with Constables Durgesh
Kumar Yadav, Dheeraj Kumar Singh and
Antesh Kumar Tewari reached to the over
bridge, which was on the eastern side of the
Unnao Railway Station. The RPF team
found that 150-200 people having Congress
Party flags and banners in their hands
standing under the over bridge. At that
time, Train No.18191 UP was coming to
Platform No.2. These protesters seeing the
train coming, came on the railway track of
Platform No.2. The driver of the train
finding the crowd standing on the railway
track, stopped the train near the over bridge
before Platform No.2 at around 11.38 AM.
As soon as the train was stopped, some
protesters climbed on the engine of the
train and raised slogans. GRP/RPF team
could, however, persuade them to come
down from the engine of the train, and the
crowd was also persuaded to leave the
railway track. The track was cleared at
around 11.50 AM and the train started from
the said place at around 11.54 AM to
Platform No.2. Altogether, the train was
detained by the protesters for 12 minutes.

3. Annu Tandon, appellant no.1, Surya
Narayan Yadav, District President of
Congress Committee, Unnao and Amit
Shukla,
City
President
of
Congress
Committee, Unnao and Ankit Parihar were
leading the protest. There was apprehension
of law and order getting disturbed if these
people were arrested and, therefore, no
arrest was made.

4. Necessary formality was completed
at the Post and a complaint was registered
against the appellants and 150-200 other
unknown persons at Case Crime No.243 of
2017, under Section 174(a) of the Railways
Act on 12.6.2017 at 1300 Hours. The said
offence was investigated by Sub-Inspector,
Srinivas
Mishra.
Charge
sheet
was
submitted against the appellants under
Section 174(a) of the Railways Act.
Appellants
were
summoned. Accused
denied the charge and claimed for trial. The
prosecution to prove its case produced as
many as 22 documentary evidence and
examined seven prosecution witnesses.

5. P.W.-1, Hyder Mehndi, who was
posted as Station Master, Unnao on
12.6.2017, deposed that Train No.18191
UP, Tata-Chapra Express was reaching to
Platform No.2. However, some unknown
protesters stopped the train before it could
reach Platform No.2, as a result thereof, the
rail traffic got interrupted. The incident was
registered at 11.42 AM, and a copy of the
same was given to the GRP/RPF. He
proved the said report, which was marked
as Ext.Ka-1.

6. P.W.-2, Dheeraj Kumar Singh,
Constable of RPF, deposed that on
12.6.2017
after
receiving
information
regarding stoppage of Train No.18191 UP
by the crowd, the police team reached to
the place and found that Train No.18191
UP was stopped by 150-200 protesters and
some of them, had climbed on the engine of
the train. These protesters had Congress
Party flags and banners. These protesters
were
staging
the
protest
under
the
leadership of Annu Tandon, appellant no.1,
Ex-Member of Parliament, Surya Narayan
Yadav and Amit Shukla etc., and all these
persons were demanding that the City
Magistrate, Unnao should come there and
accept a memorandum from them, which
was in the name of the President of India.
With a lot of persuasion by the RPF/GPF
personnel, protesters vacated the railway
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
track and allowed the train to move on. In
this process, the train was detained from
11.38 AM to 11.50 AM. He proved the
report prepared at the site on which he had
put in his signatures and it was marked as
Ext. Ka-2. The said report was made entry
in the General Diary at 1300 hours on
12.6.2017, and the case was registered
against the appellants and others. The said
GD entry was marked as Ext.Ka-3. He also
proved the statement recorded by one
witness and it was marked as Ext.Ka-4.

7. In the cross-examination, P.W.-2
said that he was carrying mobile phone, but
did not take photograph. He did not name
the protesters and he did not remember
other names than the names of appellants
no.1 to 3.

8. P.W.-3, Girish Kumar Verma, who
was Guard in the said train, deposed that
the train got stopped by the protesters
before it could reach the platform. He
inquired from the Driver, Ajay Kumar, who
said that some protest was going on and the
protesters had claimed on the engine of the
train. The track would get cleared by the
GRP and because of the said protest, the
train got held up for 15 minutes from 11.39
AM to 11.54 AM.

9. In the cross-examination, P.W.-3
said that he did not get down from the train
to see the protest. He saw that some
protesters were siting on the railway track
and that is why the train was stopped.

10. P.W.-4, Srinivas Mishra, Subinspector, RPF, had given a statement in
this regard, which was marked as Ext.Ka4A. He also proved the photocopy of the
Guard Memo and it was marked as Ext.Ka4B. The said witness was cross-examined
by the defence.

11. P.W.-4 deposed that as soon as he
was informed regarding detention of Train
No.18191 UP by 150-200 protesters by the
Station Master, Unnao, he along with his
team reached to the site. He said that
appellant nos.1 to 3 and others were
making demand to call the City Magistrate,
Unnao to accept the memorandum from
them, which was in the name of the
President of India. Some of the protesters
have climbed on the engine of the train, and
some of them were on the railway track.
The train was detained from 11.39 AM to
11.54 AM. He got the track cleared by
persuading the protesters and the leaders of
the Congress Party. After the track was
cleared by the protesters, the movement of
the train could become possible.

12. In the cross-examination, which
took place on 23.1.2019, P.W.-4 said that
the incident took place more than two years
back and he was not able to remember the
protesters, including the three appellants.
He said that he recognized appellant no.1,
Smt. Annu Tandon as he had seen her photo
in the newspaper.

13. P.W.-5, Ajay Kumar (Loco Pilot)
deposed that on 12.6.2017 he was the Pilot
of Train No.18191 UP from Lucknow to
Farrukhabad. When the train was reaching
to Unnao Railway Station, he found that
some protesters having flags and banners of
the Congress Party in their hands were
standing near the Railway over bridge. He
blew horn for several times, but the
protesters did not clear the railway track
and then he had to stop the train. As soon as
the train was stopped, the protesters
climbed on the engine of the train and
started raising slogans. He informed
through Walkie-Talkie to the Guard and the
Station Master, Unnao and, thereafter, the
team of RPF/GRP reached at the place of
9 All. Annu Tandon & Ors. Vs. State
73
incident, and they could remove the
protesters from the engine and the railway
track got cleared. In this incident, the train
remained stopped for 15 minutes and the
railway traffic got interrupted for 15
minutes. These protesters were having
Congress Party flags and banners in their
hands. He proved the statement given to the
Investigating Officer and it was marked as
Ext.Ka-6.

14. P.W.-6, Constable, Aman Kumar
deposed that on 12.5.2017 he was posted as
Constable at the RPF Post-Unnao. His duty
was to maintain the diary from 0800 hours
to 1600 hours. At around 1300 hours, Incharge Inspector, Srinivas Mishra with
Constables Antesh Kumar, Dheeraj Kumar
and Durgesh Kumar came to the office and
said that Ex-Member of Parliament of
Congress
Party, Annu
Tadon,
Surya
Narayan Yadav and Amit Shukla and 150200 other people had stopped Train
No.18191 UP near the railway over bridge
at KM .54/35-37. These protesters had
climbed on the engine of the train and
staged
protest.
The
Ex-Member
of
Parliament was persuaded to come down
from the engine and after the railway track
was cleared, the train started to the Railway
Station. The train remained stopped from
11.39 Am to 11.54 Am. In-charge, SubInspector got the FIR registered at case
Crime No.243 of 2017, under Section
174(a) of the Railways Act on the same day
at 1300 hours, which was entered in the
General Diary by him. The report which he
had brought, proved by him and it was
marked as Ext.Ka-7.

15. P.W.7, Vimlesh Kumar Yadav,
Sub-Inspector, RPF, in his statement said
that he received the investigation report of
Crime No.243 of 2017 from the office. He
proved the charge sheet, which was marked
as
Ext.Ka-8,
and
also
proved
the
documents annexed with the charge sheet,
which were marked as Ext.Ka-9 to 22.

16. Accused-appellants in their
statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. said that they were not involved in
stopping the train, but the protest was going
on in an open area near the railway track.
In respect of the statements of the
witnesses, they said that they had no
knowledge about it. However, they did not
produce any defence witness.

17. Learned trial court has held that
the prosecution witnesses have proved the
presence of the appellants at the time and
place of the incident. The witnesses have
also said that they were the eye witnesses
to the incident. The trial court also held that
there was no such a glaring contradiction,
which would raise suspicion regarding the
prosecution case. It has also held that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt by leading oral and
documentary evidence that on 12.6.2017,
the
accused-appellants
had
led
the
protest/Rail Roko Agitation at the Unnao
Railway Station and in this sequence, Train
No.18191UP was stopped near the railway
over bridge and the railway traffic got
disrupted for 15 minutes because of the
said agitation.

18. The trial court also held that the
offence under Section 174(a) of the
Railways Act has been proved against the
accused-appellants.
Therefore,
vide
impugned judgment and order, the accusedappellants have been convicted for offence
under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act
and sentenced them as mentioned above.
The trial court also held that the Railways
had suffered Rs,3,06,0015/- @ Rs.20,402/-
per minute loss for 15 minutes disruption of
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
railway
traffic,
therefore,
under
Sections 357 and 359 Cr.P.C. each accused
was fined for Rs.25,000/-, which fine has
been deposited by the appellants.

19. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned
counsel assisted by Sri Rohit Kumar Singh
and Sri Rohit Kumar Tripathi, appearing
for the appellants has submitted that the
protest was staged at the open space near
the railway track by the appellants and
other Congress workers, and it was not the
Rail Roko Agitation as held by the learned
trial court. The Congress workers led by the
appellants
wanted
to
give
a
representation/memorandum
to
the
President of India through the City
Magistrate, Unnao regarding the alleged
atrocities on the farmers of the Madhya
Pradesh by the Bhartiya Janta Party
Government of the said State. A protest
against the alleged atrocities on the farmers
of the Madhya Pradesh, was organized near
the railway track in the open space by the
Congress workers. The driver seeing the
crowd near the railway track, slowed down
the train and stopped the train and some
protesters allegedly climbed on the engine
of the train and after some time, they came
down from the train and allowed the train
to move.

20. Learned counsel for the appellants
has forcefully submitted that it is not the
prosecution case that appellants instigated
or exhorted the people gathered near the
railway track to stop the train, which was
going
to
the
Railway
Station.
The
appellants did not ask the protesters to
come on the railway track or climb on the
engine of the train. She has further
submitted that this was neither ''Rail Roko'
Agitation nor the protest on the railway
track, but it was a symbolic protest to hand
over the memorandum to the President of
India through City Magistrate, Unnao. If
some protesters came on the railway track
and climbed on the engine of the train, it
would not come within the meaning of
Section 174(a) of the Railways Act. To
organise and hold peaceful protest against
the Government, is permitted in democratic
polity. It is part of right of freedom of
speech
and
expression.
These
are
fundamental
rights
guaranteed
under
Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the
Constitution of India. The appellants and
other protesters were exercising the said
fundamental right on 12.6.2017 and they
were holding the symbolic agitation to raise
the issue. This was not a violent protest.
For holding a peaceful protest, the
appellants could not have been prosecuted
for offence under Section 174(a) of the
Railways Act.

21. Learned counsel for the appellants
has placed reliance on the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Mazdoor
Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs. Union of
India and another, (2018) 17 SCC 324 to
buttress her submissions. She has also
submitted that except for the appellants,
charge sheet was not filed against any other
person though it was mentioned that the
appellants
and
150-200
people
had
assembled and stopped the train and
disrupted the railway traffic movement for
15 minutes. She has further submitted that
the prosecution has failed to prove by
leading
the
unimpeachable,
cogent,
credible, reliable and specific evidence to
distinguish the case of four appellants from
the rest of the crowd, but only the
appellants have been prosecuted for offence
under Section 174(a) of the Railways Act,
and
they
have
been
convicted
and
sentenced vide impugned judgement and
order. It is submitted that the offence under
Section 174(a) of the Railways Act, is not
9 All. Annu Tandon & Ors. Vs. State
75
attracted in the facts and circumstances of
the
case.
Therefore,
the
impugned
judgment and order passed by the trial
court may be set aside and the appellants
should be acquitted of the charges.

22. On the other hand, Sri Shiv P.
Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent
has submitted that it is admitted case that
the train was stopped for 15 minutes due to
the agitation led by the appellants and other
protesters, and the track got cleared after
the
RPF/GRP
team
reached
there.
Appellant no.1 was leading the protest with
three other appellants and other Congress
workers had obstructed the running of the
train for 15 minuted inasmuch as they were
on the railway track and they also climbed
the engine of the train, which would
amount to picketing. The prosecution by
cogent and credible evidence had proved
the case against the appellants, and there is
no ground to interfere with the well
reasoned judgement and order passed by
the learned trial court, which is based on
sound reasoning and appreciation of
evidence. He submits that the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.

23. I have considered the submissions
advanced on behalf of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

24. As mentioned above, the facts are
not in dispute inasmuch as on 12.6.2017 the
appellants, who were leading the protest
along with 150-200 Congress workers were
staging a protest with flags and banners of
the Congress Party in their hands and
demanding that the City Magistrate, Unnao
should
come
there
to
receive
the
memorandum in the name of the President
of India. It is nobody's case that it was a
violent protest. However, the fact remains
that Train No.18191 UP was detained by
the protesters, including the appellants, and
as per the prosecution case, when the train
reached near the railway over bridge, the
protesters in large number came on the
railway track and the driver slowed down
the train and stopped it finding large
number
of
protesters
on
the
track.
Statement of the Driver (P.W.-4) is cogent
and credible piece of evidence, which
cannot be brushed aside. Thus, because of
the protest by the appellants and other
Congress workers, the railway traffic got
disrupted for 15 minutes on 12.6.2017
between 11.39 AM to 11.54 AM. The
presence of appellants on the date, time and
place of incident is not in dispute nor the
incident is denied except to say in their 313
Cr.P.C. statements that they were not
involved in stopping the train in question.

25. The question which arise for
consideration, is whether the said incident
would come within the definition of
Section 174(a) of the Railways Act or not.
Section 174(a) of the Railways Act is in
respect of obstruction of running of train,
which is clear from the heading of the
section itself, which reads as under :-

"174. Obstructing running of
train, etc.--If any railway servant (whether
on duty or otherwise) or any other person
obstructs or causes to be obstructed or
attempts to obstruct any train or other
rolling stock upon a railway,--

(a) by squatting or picketing or
during any rail roko agitation or bandh; or

(b) by keeping without authority
any rolling stock on the railway; or

(c)
by
tampering
with,
disconnecting or interfering in any other
manner with its hose pipe or tampering
with signal gear or otherwise, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which may extend to two thousand rupees,
or with both."

26. Thus, if any Railway servant or
any other person obstructs any train by
squatting or picketing or during Rail Roko
Agitation and Bandh etc., the offence under
Section 174(a) of the Railways Act would
get attracted. Though the trial court has
mentioned that it was a ''Rail Roko'
Agitation. If the said finding is discarded,
even then this Court would be required to
consider as to whether the offence under
Section 174(a) of the Railways Act was
committed by the appellants or not. As per
provisions of Section 174(a) of the
Railways Act, if running of the train is
obstructed by squatting or picketing, this
would attract the offence under Section
174(a) of the Railways Act.

27. The Driver of the train in his
evidence very categorically said that he
found that large number of people having
Congress Party flags and banners standing
on the railway track on the date, time and
place of the incident, and then he had to
slow down the train and had to stop the
train near the railway over bridge. Large
number of people on railway track staging
protest would amount to picketing. It has
also come in evidence that as soon as the
train got stopped, several persons/Congress
workers climbed on the engine of the train.
Appellant no.1, Smt. Annu Tandon and
other appellants were persuaded to come
down from the engine of the train and the
railway track was cleared. Thereafter, the
train could move and in this process, the
train
got
detained
for
15
minutes.
Therefore, presence of the appellants at the
site is not in dispute. The defence has not
led any evidence to support their case that
the protest was being staged at nearby
ground and field, whereas the prosecution
had led cogent and credible evidence to say
that the protesters staged the protest on the
railway track and stopped the train. It was
not a ''Rail Roko' Agitation, but the incident
would
amount
to
picketing,
which
obstructed the running of Train No.18191
UP on 12.6.2017 between 11.39 Am to
11.54 AM by the protesters, including the
appellants.

28.

Even
if
a
peaceful
agitation/protest can lead to obstruction of
running of any train by squatting or
picketing or during any Rail Roko
Agitation or bandh, the same would amount
to an offence under Section 174(a) of the
Railways Act. It is no one's case that the
protest was violent, but the fact remains
that the protesters, including the appellants,
had stopped the train for 15 minutes by
picketing on the railway track and climbed
on the engine of the train when it was
stopped.

29. In view thereof, the offence under
Section 174(a) of the Railways Act is
clearly established against the appellants
and the trial court has not committed any
error of law or jurisdiction or evidence in
convicting them for offence under Section
174(a) of the Railways Act.

30. In a democratic polity governed
by a written Constitution, people have
rights of protest against the Government's
policies, perceived atrocities. The right to
protest, is also part of fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 19 of the
Constitution of India. The citizens of this
country have rights for demonstration,
agitation and staging protest. However, this
right is not an absolute right, and it is
subject to reasonable restriction. If law
prohibits or restricts exercise of this right in
certain ways and manners, then such a law
9 All. Raj Charan & Anr. Vs. State
77
would
amount
to
putting
reasonable
restriction in exercise of the said right. The
citizens of this country are not permitted to
violate a law enacted by the legislation
while exercising their right of protest,
freedom of speech and expression.

31. However, so far as the sentence is
concerned, this Court finds that awarding
the sentence to the appellants for maximum
sentence
of
two
years
of
simple
imprisonment
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, is excessive. In
democracy under our Constitution, people
have right to protest against Government
policies/action/inaction,
provided
the
protest does not lead to commission of an
offence by the protesters. Except for
detaining the train for 15 minutes, there
was no damage to private and public
property by the protesters by and large it
was a peaceful and symbolic protest.

32. In view thereof, this Court finds
that
imprisonment
of
two
years
is
unwarranted in the facts and circumstances
of the case and, therefore, the impugned
judgement and order dated 18.3.2021
passed by the trial court is modified to the
extent that the appellants are sentenced
with fine only. The appellants had already
deposited the fine of Rs.25,000/- each and,
therefore, no further fine is required to be
deposited by them. The appellants are on
bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and
sureties are discharged.

33. Subject to above modification of
the impugned judgement and order, the
appeal is allowed in part.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 77
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.09.2022
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Jail Appeal No. 769 of 1991

Raj Charan & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ran Vijay Singh, Ms. Katyayani (A.C.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Jail Appeal - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34,
Section 323/325 r.w. Section 34. &
Section 452 - in a murder trial, merely
because
a
witness
is
interested
or
inimical, his evidence cannot be discarded
unless the same is otherwise found to be
not trustworthy - evidence of interested or
inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with
care but can not be rejected merely on the
ground of being a partisan evidence. (Para
-36,37)

Case of direct and clinching evidence - two
murders committed - three injured eye
witnesses of incident - sons and daughter of the
one deceased - two independent witnesses -
eye witness of murder - married daughter of
another deceased - relatives of both deceased -
medical evidence fully supports prosecution
evidence - Both incidents occurred in broad day
light - prompt first information report lodged by
informant - accused persons including the
appellants had also motive to commit such
offence - incidents and places of incidents not
disputed by defence side. (Para -47 )

HELD:- Trial court rightly concluded that postmortem reports of both the deceased fully
support the prosecution version qua occurrence
of both the incidents. Trial court fully satisfied in
convicting the appellant. (Para -54,55 )

Jail appeal dismissed. (E-7)