Statements In Newspapers Are Merely Hearsay & Cannot Serve As Proven Facts Unless Corroborated By Author: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that statements in newspapers are merely hearsay and cannot serve as proven facts unless corroborated by the author.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
“The assertion made in a newspaper cannot be treated as proved facts reported therein. A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, in the absence of statement of the maker of the news report, the same cannot be relied upon as a proved fact”
This observation arose in a case concerning the electrocution death of one Satya Devi due to negligence by the Power Development Department (PDD).
The petitioners, Balwant Singh and Munish Singh, sought compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs following the death of their mother, Satya Devi, aged 45, on June 28, 2007. Devi had ventured into the forest of Solki village in search of her buffalo and tragically came into contact with a live electric wire lying on the ground. The police investigation revealed that despite prior complaints by villagers about the broken wire, the concerned lineman, respondent No. 4, took no action. The police filed a charge sheet under Section 304-A of the RPC against the lineman, citing gross negligence.
Claiming negligence by the PDD the petitioners pointed that the live wire had been reported 19-20 days before the incident but remained unrepaired and also submitted a post-mortem report and police challan confirming death by electrocution.
Contesting the compensation claim the respondents cited the Daily Excelsior news report attributing the death to a lightning strike and argued that disputed questions of fact were unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
Observations By The Court:
After considering the rival contentions Justice Dhar dismissed the respondents' reliance on the newspaper report, stating,
"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 highlighted the strength of the post-mortem report, which unequivocally noted electrocution as the cause of death.
"The post-mortem report of the deceased, which is an admitted document, clearly indicates that the deceased had received injury which is possible by a live electric wire, and it is also recorded in the post-mortem report that death of the deceased had taken place due to electrocution.", the court remarked.
Justice Dhar added that the police investigation corroborated this finding, pointing out that one end of the live wire was tied to an electric pole while the other lay on the ground.
The court also cited Rule 77 of the Electricity Rules, 1978 which provide for the maximum clearance above ground of the conductor or service line has to be 20 ft. and the minimum clearance above ground has to be 13 ft, in all cases and observed,
"In the present case, as is clear from the police challan, the live electric wire had broken and one end of the said wire was on the ground with which the deceased came in contact resulting in her death, meaning thereby that the officials of the respondent-Department, who were obliged to maintain minimum ground clearance of 13 ft., in all cases, have derelicted their duty of maintaining the electric wires in the present case.
The Court underscored the PDD's strict liability under the doctrine established in Rylands v. Fletcher and reinforced by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and held,
"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."
Recognizing the Government of Jammu and Kashmir's policy providing ex-gratia relief for electrocution deaths, the Court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioners in equal shares within two months, with an interest of 6% per annum for any delay.
Case Title: Balwant Singh Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 308