Cannot Deny Negligence: Uttarakhand HC Refuses To Set Aside Order Directing UPCL's Manager To Appear As Accused In Electrocution Case

The victim was a girl who was electrocuted while going to the terrace. It was alleged due to faulty power lines.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit said that “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.”

Advocate Piyush Garg appeared for the Applicant while Advocate Dinesh Chauhan appeared for the State.

In this case, the victim had gone to the roof of the house to hang some clothes wherein she was electrocuted. She was taken to the hospital but her hand had to be amputated. FIR was registered against the owner of the house. The Trial Court during the course of the trial found that the power line was laid by the Applicant and directed the Managing Director of UPCL to appear as an accused.

The order was challenged before a revisional court which rejected the petition and upheld the decision of the Trial Court. Following this, the Applicants approached the High Court.

The Court after a careful examination of facts and circumstances said that “From perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the sequence of the incident in which the unfortunate girl sustained severe injuries, and evidence of P.W.10available on record, 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. It is not reflected from the record that the same has ever been inspected by the U.P.C.L.”

The Court further added that “an attempt was made by the U.P.C.L. to make house owner liable for any untoward incident in future. But by doing this it cannot absolve it from its legal responsibility to maintain the lines.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application.

Cause Title: Managing Director, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand