Introduction:

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently clarified that statements in newspapers cannot be treated as proven facts unless corroborated by their authors. The Court, while addressing a case of electrocution leading to the tragic death of a woman, dismissed reliance on a newspaper report attributing the death to lightning, emphasizing that such reports are mere hearsay without the maker’s testimony.

The case involved Balwant Singh and Munish Singh seeking Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation following the electrocution death of their mother, Satya Devi. They alleged negligence on the part of the Power Development Department (PDD) for failing to repair a live electric wire that caused the incident. The respondents contested the claim, relying on a news report suggesting lightning as the cause of death. However, the Court relied on substantive evidence, including the post-mortem report and police findings, to hold the PDD liable under the doctrine of strict liability.

Petitioners’ Contentions:

• Negligence by PDD:

The petitioners argued that the PDD failed to act despite prior complaints from villagers about a broken electric wire lying dangerously on the ground. This negligence led to their mother’s death by electrocution on June 28, 2007.

• Documentary Evidence:

They presented a post-mortem report confirming electrocution as the cause of death and a police challan charging the lineman responsible for gross negligence under Section 304-A of the RPC.

• Claim for Compensation:

Citing the government’s liability under the doctrine established in Rylands v. Fletcher and subsequent rulings like Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, the petitioners sought Rs. 25 lakhs in damages for their loss.

Respondents’ Contentions:

• Disputed Cause of Death:

The respondents argued that the incident occurred due to a lightning strike, not electrocution. They relied on a Daily Excelsior newspaper report to support this claim.

• Unsuitability of Writ Jurisdiction:

The respondents contended that the case involved disputed facts that could not be resolved under writ jurisdiction.

• Denial of Liability:

The PDD denied negligence, asserting that they had adhered to safety norms and maintained the necessary clearance levels for electric wires as per the Electricity Rules, 1978.

Observations by the Court:

• Rejection of Newspaper Report:

Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the reliance on the newspaper report, categorizing it as hearsay. The Court emphasized that statements made in newspapers cannot be treated as proven facts unless corroborated by the author or supported by independent evidence.

“A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, in the absence of the statement of the maker of the news report, the same cannot be relied upon as a proved fact,” the Court remarked.

• Reliance on Documentary Evidence:

The Court highlighted the credibility of the post-mortem report, which unequivocally established electrocution as the cause of death. It further noted that the police investigation corroborated this finding, revealing that a live electric wire, tied to an electric pole at one end, had been lying on the ground for days.

• Violation of Electricity Rules, 1978:

The Court observed that Rule 77 of the Electricity Rules, 1978 mandates a minimum ground clearance of 13 feet for electric wires. In this case, the live wire’s presence on the ground indicated gross negligence on the part of PDD officials, who failed in their duty to maintain safety standards.

• Strict Liability Doctrine:

Citing the principle of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, the Court held the PDD vicariously liable for the consequences of its negligence.

“The omission on part of the officials of the respondent-department in discharging their duty would certainly amount to negligence on their part, and the respondent-department would vicariously become liable to compensate for the damage to the life and property which may ensue because of negligence or lack of care on part of its officials,” the Court noted.

Judgment:

• Liability of PDD:

The Court held the Power Development Department liable for Satya Devi’s death due to its failure to repair the live electric wire and maintain safety standards.

• Compensation Awarded:

Recognizing the government’s ex-gratia policy for electrocution deaths, the Court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioners in equal shares. The amount is to be paid within two months, with an interest of 6% per annum for any delay.

• Reinforcement of Judicial Principles:

The Court reiterated the inadmissibility of unverified newspaper reports as evidence, underscoring the importance of corroborated evidence in establishing facts.