The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to quash a trial court summons that was issued to the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd (UPCL).
The case revolves around a tragic incident where a 14-year-old girl suffered severe hand injuries due to electrocution while hanging clothes to dry on a house roof.
A single bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit, made an observation that the responsibility of maintaining a power line that passes through a habitation lies with the electricity department.
The Court emphasized that the UPCL cannot evade its legal obligation to maintain electric lines.
“This Court is surprised to note that how the owner of the house can alone be held responsible for the negligence, exonerating the U.P.C.L. from the offence. It is the duty of the U.P.C.L. to maintain its line, which is going through the habitation,” the bench observed.
Consequently, the Court determined that there were no flaws in the order summoning the electricity department for the trial related to the incident of electrocution. Furthermore, the Court stated that the UPCL retains the right to present its defense during the course of the trial.
“From the material available on record as well as the evidence of P.W.10, it cannot be said that the negligence was not there on the part of U.P.C.L., which is the main functionary to manage the network of the electric lines. By the impugned order, the U.P.C.L. has only been directed to face the trial as an accused and yet the U.P.C.L. has every opportunity to defend itself from the prosecution,” the bench noted.
The case pertains to an incident which occurred in April 2019, involving a 14-year-old girl who suffered hand injuries due to electrocution while hanging clothes on the roof of a house.
As a result, her right hand had to be amputated due to extensive injuries, and her left hand also sustained severe injuries. The FIR was lodged against the house owner for causing grievous hurt. Although the UPCL was named in the FIR, the chargesheet did not include the electricity department as an accused. However, when the case reached the trial court, a summons was issued to UPCL, leading the department to file a revision plea to have it quashed by the sessions court.
Unfortunately for the UPCL, the sessions court dismissed their plea, prompting them to approach the High Court seeking relief. The UPCL argued that there was insufficient evidence to implicate them as an accused in the case. However, the High Court dismissed their plea, taking into account crucial factors. One such factor was the initial filing of the FIR against the electricity department, even though the chargesheet did not implicate any UPCL official. The Court observed the UPCL’s attempt to shift liability onto the house owner for any future untoward incidents.
The judge also noted that in 2016, the house owner had written to UPCL, informing them of a bent electric line caused by a landslide. Although the owner stated that UPCL had repaired the damaged line, it was unclear whether UPCL officials had conducted an inspection of the house to ensure compliance with the owner’s affidavit, which was submitted to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the UPCL.
Considering these factors, the Court dismissed UPCL’s petition, asserting that they had failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the summons.
