Uphaar Tragedy: HC Upholds Ansals' Conviction but Reduces Jail Term


Agencies

New Delhi, Dec 19: The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of real estate barons Sushil and Gopal Ansal in the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy case according to PTI.

The High Court has, however, rejected the plea of victims' kin to enhance the two-year jail term awarded to the Ansal brothers and reduced the brothers’ jail term from two to one year.

Sushil and Gopal Ansal, owners of Uphaar cinema, and other convicts were challenging their conviction in a trial court for a fire tragedy in the theatre that killed 59 cinegoers in 1997.

Ansals, sentenced to a two-year jail term for causing death due to a rash and negligent act, are presently lodged in Tihar Jail following a Supreme Court's direction to complete the sentence awarded by the trial court on September 11.

Justice S Ravinder Bhat had reserved his order on November 17 after the counsel for the Ansal brothers, CBI and the victims' kin completed their arguments that spanned over 26 hearings.

Appearing for the Ansal brothers, noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani had denied all allegations levelled against them and claimed his clients should not be held responsible as they were not on the board of directors of the cinema hall when the incident took place.

Shifting the blame to erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board, the senior lawyer said there was no deviation carried out by them in the building. People died due to asphyxia caused by fire that started from the transformer situated in the basement of the hall.

Countering Jethmalani's arguments, CBI had sought from HC enhancement of punishment under more stringent provisions as they were responsible for the mishap. The CBI contended that the Ansal brothers, who had the financial control of the theatre, failed to correct the deviations despite having knowledge about the extra seats in the balcony and closure of all exits, except only one.

The CBI argued the trial court adopted a lenient approach towards them and they should be punished under section 304 part-II of IPC that deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is punishable up to 10 years of imprisonment. On the afternoon of June 13, 1997, at least 59 people, including women and children, were killed due to asphyxia in a devastating fire that broke out in the cinema hall during screening of the Hindi film "Border''.

Appearing for the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT), counsel K T S Tulsi had demanded the then DCP Amod Kanth's prosecution as he was also allegedly responsible for permitting the hall managers to have additional seats.

The counsel also pleaded for enhancing the punishment awarded to the accused, including the Ansal brothers.

The trial court on November 20 last year had held the Ansal brothers guilty, along with three others, under Section 304-A IPC (causing death due to rash and negligent act) and had sentenced them to two years imprisonment.

Seven others including two theatre managers, Ajit Chowdhary and Nirmal Chopra, were convicted under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced to seven years jail. Others who were convicted under the same section were R K Sharma, Manmohan Unniyal (cinema's gatekeeper), Brij Mohan Satija, A K Gera and Bir Singh (all DVB officials). 

  

Top Stories


Leave a Comment

Title: Uphaar Tragedy: HC Upholds Ansals' Conviction but Reduces Jail Term



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.