One dead, 4 injured as Tazia touches high-voltage wire during Muharram procession in Jharkhand
The incident occurred in Chakosingha village under the Thodthambha outpost area.
According to officials, as participants lifted a large Tazia on their shoulders as part of the traditional procession, it accidentally touched the high-tension wire, triggering a massive electric shock.
Witnesses said five to six people collapsed immediately, writhing in pain after the shock. One of them died on the spot. The condition of two of the injured is said to be critical. All the injured have been admitted to the Giridih District Hospital for treatment.
Confirming the incident Giridih Deputy Commissioner Ramniwas Yadav said that the administration responded promptly, providing immediate assistance and medical care.
The tragedy led to panic and chaos in the procession, with the mood of mourning gripping the entire village.
This is not the first such incident in the district. In 2023, a similar accident during Muharram in Chakmanjo village under Jamua police station limits claimed the life of a youth and left two others injured.
That same year, in a separate incident in Petarwar, Bokaro district, four people were electrocuted and over 10 others sustained severe burns after a Tazia touched a high-voltage line.
In view of recurring accidents, the Jharkhand State Electricity Supply Corporation (JSEB), following a directive from the High Court, issued clear guidelines last week regarding the permissible height of flags, Tazias, and tableaux in religious processions. However, despite the advisory, several processions across the state continue to flout the rules by carrying Tazias of excessive height.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Management disregards govt. directions, allege NIEIT staff
The employees of NIE Institute of Technology (NIEIT) at Koorgalli in Mysuru have alleged that the management had disregarded the directions issued by the Higher Education Department to continue their services. In a press statement, they said the Higher Education Department on June 27 directed the institution to continue the services of teaching and non-teaching staff at NIEIT, pending the final outcome of a writ petition filed in the High Court in this regard. The department's direction came after the High Court issued an interim order on June 12 in their favour, they said. Despite repeated requests for their reinstatement, the principal has blatantly refused to comply, they added. It may be mentioned that the management decided to close NIEIT at Koorgalli, which has about 95 teaching and non-teaching staff, from the ensuing year, while leasing its infrastructure on Mananthavadi Road. The employees claimed that the management assured to absorb all the permanent staff of NIEIT into NIE during the merger with service continuity, seniority, and lawful benefits, but the promises were not met. While alleging that they their entry into the NIEIT campus was barred from June 12, and that unlawful retrenchment notices were served on June 14, the aggrieved employees said that the Voluntary Separation Scheme introduced by the management also deprives them of their rightful dues. However, the management said the matter was still pending in the court.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Relief to UP Dy CM Keshav Prasad Maurya: Allahabad HC rejects petition challenging his degree
The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya in a case challenging the authenticity of his educational degree. A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh ruled that the petitioner, Diwakar Nath Tripathi, was neither a victim nor an aggrieved party in the matter, and therefore, lacked the legal standing to seek criminal proceedings. Tripathi had filed a petition alleging that Maurya had submitted a fake degree to secure a petrol pump allotment and to contest elections. He sought the registration of an FIR and a criminal investigation into the matter. After hearing the arguments from both sides, the High Court reserved the order on May 25, which was finally delivered on Monday. The case dates back to 2021 when Tripathi approached the district court under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, seeking directions to register an FIR. He alleged that Maurya had filed false affidavits about his educational qualifications during the 2007, 2012, and 2014 elections, and had used forged documents to obtain petrol pumps from Indian Oil Corporation. The trial court had rejected his plea on September 4, 2021. The court found that no cognizable offence was found against Maurya. Accordingly, Tripathi's plea was rejected. Tripathi then moved the High Court with a criminal revision petition, which was initially dismissed due to a delay of 318 days. However, on January 6 this year, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed it to hear the matter on merits. After hearing the case, the High Court upheld the lower court's decision, reiterating that only a person directly affected has the right to initiate criminal proceedings in such cases.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
You Can't Undo Your Own Illegal Act, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that individuals cannot seek legal relief for consequences of their own unlawful acts The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot extend relief to individuals who seek to benefit from their own unlawful acts. Emphasising that law does not reward a person for his or her own wrongdoing, the Court refused to assist a litigant who asked the judiciary to nullify his own unlawful sale of land and simultaneously grant him relief based on that illegality. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Machhindranath S/o Kundlik Tarade, challenging a 2019 judgment of the Bombay High Court. The High Court had upheld a single-judge decision that cancelled a trial court's order granting him possession of ancestral land, ruling that the transaction he sought to undo had resulted from his own missteps. The case revolved around whether a 1971 land conveyance which was executed by the plaintiff in favour of a relative and was valid in law, given that the land had already been pledged as security for a cooperative society loan. The land in question, located in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, measured approximately 15 acres and 17 gunthas and was ancestral property belonging to the plaintiff, Machhindranath. Facing financial distress, the plaintiff had taken a loan from Kendal Bk Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd, creating a charge on the property to secure repayment by November 9, 1971. Before repaying that loan, he approached his nephew (also his son-in-law and the first defendant) for a personal loan of ₹5,000. In return, he executed a registered sale deed on November 2, 1971, transferring ownership of the land to the defendant. Later, the plaintiff challenged that sale, claiming it was not an actual sale but a conditional arrangement. The trial court sided with him, declaring the deed void under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which restricts alienation of property under cooperative loan charge. But the High Court reversed that finding, a decision now upheld by the Supreme Court. 'The law cannot and does not reward a person for his own wrongs," the Court declared, cautioning against any judicial endorsement of 'perpetuation of illegality." The Court said it was impermissible for a litigant to ask for a relief that is rooted in an act they themselves committed in violation of law. This case, the Court noted, presented a peculiar scenario: the plaintiff not only admitted to having executed the sale deed in violation of a statutory restriction, but also sought the court's assistance to annul it without the aggrieved party (the lending society) ever initiating action. The Court rejected this as an abuse of legal process. Section 48 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act provides that a borrower-member cannot alienate property charged to a cooperative society during the currency of the loan. Subsection (e) states that any such transaction would be void. However, the Supreme Court interpreted this 'void" clause as directory, not mandatory, meaning that such a transaction is voidable, not automatically invalid. The Court explained that only the society in whose favour the charge exists has the right to challenge such a transaction. 'In the absence of the society initiating proceedings to nullify the sale, the transaction remains valid in the eyes of the law," the bench ruled. Therefore, the plaintiff who was the original violator could not come to court asking that the sale be undone. Crucially, the society in question never approached any authority to challenge the sale deed or enforce its charge over the land. There was no complaint, legal notice, or litigation initiated by the society. 'The right to challenge such a transaction rests solely with the society that granted the loan. It is not open to the borrower who breached the statutory terms to claim the sale was void, when the society itself has not objected," the Court reasoned. Further weakening the plaintiff's case, the Court pointed out that in the very sale deed executed in 1971, he declared that the land was free from all encumbrances. This undermined his later claim that the sale was only a conditional transaction meant to secure repayment. 'If the land was declared unencumbered, then the argument that the sale was conditional collapses on its own weight," the Court observed. Affirming the Bombay High Court's decision, the Supreme Court held that no relief could be granted to the plaintiff. It directed that the registry prepare a decree sheet to finalise the matter. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 07, 2025, 18:43 IST News india You Can't Undo Your Own Illegal Act, Says Supreme Court
