Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

Comment on
Association Of Victims Of Uphaar vs Sushil Ansal and others

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
DR. MANWENDRA KUMAR TIWARI VISHAL KUMAR ARYA
ASSOCIATE PROF. (LAW) ROLL NO- 170101163
V SEMESTER , SEC- B
Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 4
FACTS OF THE CASE: ....................................................................................... 5
TRIAL IN SESSION COURT .............................................................................. 5
APPEAL TO HIGH COURT................................................................................ 6
APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT: ...................................................................... 6
REVIEW PETITION ............................................................................................ 7
DISSENTING JUDGEMENT .............................................................................. 7
AN APPRAISAL: ................................................................................................. 8
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 9
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide
Dr.Manwendra Kumar Tiwari, my professor of this subject for his exemplary guidance,
monitoring and constant encouragement to give shape to this project. The blessing, help and
guidance given by them time to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on
which I am about to embark.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my respected seniors who
share their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in
completing this task through various stages.

Lastly, I thank the almighty, my parents, brother, sister and friends for their constant
encouragement without which this assignment would not have been possible.

VISHAL KUMAR ARYA

In the posh area of south Delhi in Green Park is located the Uphaar Cinema. Though it was
constructed sometimes in 1973, however, after renovation in 1996/97, the first film released
in this theatre on Friday, the 13th June, 1997 was "BORDER". The film had a patriotic fervor
and was based on the 1971 Indo-Pak war. During the matinee show of the film, immediately
after the interval, the audience in the cinema hall saw smoke coming out of the side of the
screen. Most of the patrons sitting in the hall thought it was some special effect which was a
part of the film Realizing little that a fire had broken out in the cinema building. By the time
they realised that the smoke had engulfed the hall because of the fire in the building it was
too late for many of them to leave the balcony. The entire balcony area and the stairs leading
to the balcony were so full of smoke that it had became impossible for many of the patrons to
go out of the building and as a result thereof 59 people, which included infants and children,
lost their lives because of asphyxiation and about 103 other persons sustained injuries.
Immediately after the incident of fire, the Lieutenant Governor vide order dated 14th June,
1997 ordered an enquiry into the incident.

Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v ShushilAnsal and others (2017)2 Supreme

APPELLANT: Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/2017

▪ On the morning of 13 June, 1997; Uphaar Cinema Theatre in South Delhi was screening
the film ‘Border’.
▪ On the very same morning, the two transformers installed on the ground floor of cinema
building caught fire.
▪ The transformers were maintained by the digital video broadcaster.
▪ The transformersfrequently suffered from various defects but were not duly repaired.
▪ On the day of accident, another repair was made but it caused loose connections which
led to periloussparks. Consequently, the hall was set on fire by the sparks.
▪ While around 750 people somehow managed to escape; there were still many who were
stuck in the hall.
▪ Illegal extensions, blocked exits and additional seats added fuel to the fire.
▪ Soon the hall was filled with smoke, killing 59 people due to asphyxia and more
than100 were injured in the consequent stampede.
▪ On July 22, 1997; theatre owner Sushil Ansal and his son Pranav were arrested in
Mumbai.
▪ Soon the investigation was transferred from Delhi Police to CBI.
▪ On 15th November, 1997; CBI filed chargesheet against theatre owners Sushil and
Gopal Ansal and 14 others.

TRIAL IN SESSION COURT

( SushilAnsal v. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation[1]):

A Session Court presided by LD Malik started the trial on March 10, 1999. Charges were
framed by the court under various sections, namely Section 304, 304 A, 337 and 338 of IPC.
The trial court convicted Sushil and Gopal Ansal for commission of offences under Section
304A, 337 and 338 read with Section 36 of IPC. Both were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5000. They were also convicted under Section
14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. They were fined Rs. 1000 or imprisonment of two
months under Cinematograph Act. 10 other accused were also convicted by the High Court.
APPEAL TO HIGH COURT:

The High Court on the above findings upheld the conviction of

Sushil Ansal (A-1) and Gopal Ansal (A-2). It also upheld the conviction of

H.S. Panwar (A-15) for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and

338 read with Section 36 IPC but reduced the sentence awarded to them under

Section 304-A to one year’s rigorous imprisonment without interfering with

the fine imposed by the trial court. The High Court also reduced the

sentence awarded to the aforementioned three appellants under Section 337

to three months’ rigorous imprisonment and under Section 338 to one year’s

rigorous imprisonment with the direction that the sentences shall run

concurrently including the sentence awarded to the Ansal brothers (A-1 and

A-2) under Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act for which too the said two

accused persons were convicted.

APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT:

All the convicted persons filed appeal before the apex court except the gatekeeper who served
out the awarded sentence during the proceedings. The Association of Victims of Uphaar
Tragedy filed appeal for retrial under Section 304 Part II.The Supreme Court ruled that the
sentence awarded by the High Court should be increased to maximum period of two years as
provided under Section 304A. But the bench of Justice GS Mishra and Justice TS Thakur
opined that it would be better to charge a substantial amount of fine rather than increasing the
period of sentence and a fine of Rs. 100 crores was imposed on Ansal brothers. Then the
appeal was filed by the victims and the matter was referred to a three judge bench to
determine the question on quantum of sentence. The bench observed that the ends of justice
would meet if the accused are directed to pay fine which can be further used to set up or
upgrade Trauma Centers in NCT of Delhi. SC directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.
30 crores It further laid down that if the said amount is paid within three months, the
sentence would be reduced to the sentence already undergone. If the said amount is not paid
within three months from the date of order, the appellants will have to undergo the rigorous
imprisonment of two years including the already undergone sentence.

REVIEW PETITION:(Bench: RanjanGogoi, Kurian Joseph, Adarsh Kumar Goel)

The Association of victims of Uphaar Tragedy filed a review petition with regard to sentence
awarded to Ansal brothers by SC. SC declined the prayer for review of sentence of Sushil
Ansal and the earlier sentence of a fine of Rs. 30 crores was upheld. However, Gopal Ansal
was sentenced to imprisonment of one year along with fine of Rs. 30 crores. This was the
view of majority (Justice RanjanGogoi and Justice Kurian Joseph).As per Justice AK Goel,
there was no merit in the review petitions and the same were dismissed by him.

Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy convener NeelamKrishnamoorthy expressed her

DISSENTING JUDGEMENT (J.Adarsh Kumar Goel)

As regards section 65 IPC which puts a limit of imprisonment from different sentence up to
one fourth of the term of imprisonment, grievance against higher default sentence, if any, can
be only by accused and not by state- Moreover, it is not a case of higher default sentence
being awarded but of giving option to pay higher for reduced sentence- There is, thus, no
conflict with sentence prescribed by IPC as submitted by review petitioners- there is also no
merit in contention that once the court felt that higher sentence was required to be imposed
sentence less than 1 year cannot be awarded- Order of Court has to be seen as the whole and
cannot be split into different sentences- The operative part of order shows that the court has
tried to balance the interest of justice And while holding that sentence was required to be
enhanced, it was added that in lieu of additional period of enhanced sentence, substantial
amount of fine was required to be imposed and the fine was to be utilised for setting up the
operating the Trauma centre of hospital managed by government of Delhi- It also noted that
having regards to advanced age of A1[ 74 years as per observation in the order ]and who had
already undergone the sentence of 5-6 month and with remission of 9 month out of sentence
of one year awarded by High court, further Imprisonment was not necessary if he paid the
Imposed fine- Same sentence was applied A2- it is also necessary to mention that higher fine
cannot be read as extra benefit to a rich person but had been imposed on account of capacity
to pay- therefore held, there is neither any illegality or any impropriety warranting review
order passed by Supreme Court- Penal code, 1860 section 304 a 337 and 338 read with
section 36.

AN APPRAISAL:

The Hon’ble court has acknowledged that the matter called for enhanced punishment but the
court also expressed its boundaries set by law. It could not provide punishment beyond what
is ascribed by law. But the case in itself calls for inclusion of a new provision in criminal law
to deal with the cases of strict liability when the public at large is involved. The owners of
open properties having hazardous substances must be bound by criminal law and not by mere
compensation. The nation has already witnessed the tragedies like Uphaar and Bhopal. Now
it’s high time to bring the notion of strict liability under the umbrella of an offence. Section
304A is meant to deal with the cases of accident and not tragedies like Uphaar where
hundreds of people were affected. Also, paying a compensation of 30 crores is not a big deal
for the people who could afford the highest paid lawyer in the country. So its high time to
amend the law on strict liability cases to avoid more Uphaars.
Conclusion

The Association of Victims of the Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) has been fighting to get justice
for their loved ones who were killed on June 13th, 1997 at Uphaar Cinema, New Delhi in one
of the worst manmade tragedies.

AVUT invested its faith in the Criminal Justice System and took up an arduous and agonizing
fight for justice in the hope that it would get justice for those who were killed in the tragedy.
But the final verdict of the Supreme Court we believe is certain to go down in the history as a
travesty of justice. AVUT’s endeavour for past 21 years has been not only to get justice for
our loved ones, but also to ensure implementation of safety laws in public spaces so that no
precious human lives are lost.

In the last two decades the nation has witnessed many fire tragedies, the most recent being
Kamala Mills Fire, Mumbai. Apart from the number of casualties being different, there is one
common thread that runs through each of them is that all of them were man-made. Under
our prevalent system, such offenders are booked under section 304-A of the Indian Penal
Code which translates into causing death due to rash and negligent act. In this grim scenario,
incidents of such catastrophic magnitude are bound to recur since there is no legal deterrence
that can instill fear in the minds of possible wrongdoers

In the Uphaar Fire Tragedy Case Sushil Ansal who had merely under gone 5 months in jail,
was allowed to walk free by the Apex Court because of his old age – a pitiful 2 ½ days in jail
for each of the lives lost.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

• www.scconline.com
• www.casemine.com
• http://www.the-laws.com
• http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/certiorari.htm