Electrocution of 14-year-old: Uttarakhand High Court says UPCL cannot absolve itself from responsibility to maintain electric line

The Uttarakhand High Court recently declined to quash a trial court summons issued to the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL) in a case where a 14-year-old girl suffered severe hand injuries after she was electrocuted while hanging clothes to dry on a house roof. [Managing Director, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd v State].A bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit observed that the responsibility for maintaining a power line that passes through habitation lies with the electricity department..The UPCL cannot absolve itself from its legal responsibility to maintain electric lines, the Court said. "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 judge observed. .As such, the Court found no infirmity in the order summoning the electricity department in the trial concerning the electrocution incident..The Court added that the UPCL can avail the opportunity to defend itself during 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 Court said. .The first information report (FIR), in this case, referred to an incident that took place in April 2019. A 14-year-old girl suffered hand injuries due to electrocution when she went to the roof of a house to hang clothes. After she was taken to the hospital, it was discovered that her right hand was extensively injured and had to be amputated. Her left hand also suffered severe injuries. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against the house owner for causing grievous hurt..While the FIR was filed against UPCL as well, the chargesheet did not arraign the electricity department as an accused. However, when the case reached the trial court, a summons was issued to UPCL, prompting the department to file a revision plea to quash the same before the sessions court. After the sessions court quashed this plea, the UPCL moved the High Court for relief. The UPCL contended that there was no sufficient evidence on record to summon the UPCL as an accused..The High Court, however, dismissed the plea.A significant factor that influenced the Court's decision was that the FIR was initially filed against the electricity department, while the chargesheet omitted to implicate any UPCL official. The High Court observed that the trial court had noticed this attempt by UPCL to make the house owner liable for any untoward incident in the future. The judge also observed that in 2016, the house owner had also written to UPCL that an electric line had bent after a landslide, even though he also stated that the damaged line was repaired by UPCL.The Court further observed that there was no documented evidence indicating whether UPCL officials ever conducted an inspection of the house to determine whether it was constructed in accordance with the affidavit submitted by the owner to secure a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the UPCL.In view of these aspects, the Court proceeded to dismiss UPCL's petition. .Advocate Piyush Garg represented UPCL and advocate Dinesh Chauhan represented State..[Read Order]