Muhamed Mustaque, J.

1. The original appellant filed a suit claiming compensation against the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), on account of injuries sustained by him. The suit was dismissed for want of proof of negligence against the Board.

2. The original appellant died and his legal heirs are now impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 5.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the Board.

4. The alleged incident occurred on 23.4.1999, while the original appellant/plaintiff was riding a Suzuki Motor Cycle along M.C. road from Kottayam to Changanassery. According to the plaintiff, a stay wire of the nearby electric pole, removed from the pole, was lying loose on the eastern side of the road and his left foot got entangled in the loose wire and, on account of the impact of the accident, it severed at midtarsal joint. The Board denied the cause of the accident. The plaintiff relied on Ext.A17 F.I. Statement, Ext.A18 Mahazar, Exts.A25 and A25(a) photographs and negative and Exts.A14(a) and A15 reports in the news papers to prove the cause of the accident. The court below while dismissing the suit relied on Ext.A19 refer report in Crime No.300 of 1999 of the Changanassery Police Station. In the report, it is stated that the plaintiff was riding his motor cycle and while giving side to the KSRTC Bus, the motor cycle moved to the left side and as a result of such diversion, it ran over the heap of rubbles which was lying on the side of the road for the purpose of tarring. The court also relied on Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is an application for loan filed by the plaintiff's father, who was employed under the Board, wherein he has stated that his son had sustained injuries due to road accident.

5. It seems that the court below had overlooked various circumstances and sequence of events that would establish preponderance of probability of the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The accident occurred on 23.4.1999 at 9.15 p.m. The newspaper reports, which came on next day reported that while the plaintiff was giving side to the KSRTC Bus, his bike hit on the heap of rubbles and thereafter, his foot entangled in the stay wire and as a result, his foot was chopped off. It was also reported that the local people had taken the plaintiff to the hospital. The news paper reports are not admissible and are considered as hearsay evidence. However, there are well known exception to hearsay evidence if a statement is contemporaneously made, which is known as res gestae, as embodied under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Section 6 of the Act provides that the facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1999) 9 SCC 507] held as follows:

“Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the provisions of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication”.

6. In Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P.[ (1996) 6 SCC 241] held as follows:

“The principle of law embodied in Section 6 of the Evidence Act is usually known as the rule of res gestae recognised in English law. The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue 'as to form part of the same transaction' that it becomes relevant by itself. This rule is, roughly speaking, an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. The rationale in making certain statement or fact admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act is on acco