Depositions of B.L. Jindal PW 15 and Ram Kumar Gupta PW 17 who happened to be the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively of the MCD were also recorded.
So also letter dated 2nd February, 1973 by which the companypany had agreed to give DESU two rooms for their transformer and HT and LT panels at a numberinal rent of Rs.11/ per year was signed by Sushil Ansal A 1 .
An affidavit dated 21st March, 1975 and letter dated 2nd April, 1979 filed in companynection with renewal of the cinema license were also relied upon by the Trial Court to show that Sushil Ansal A 1 was number only the licensee of Uphaar Cinema, but also that he had held himself out in that capacity before the companycerned authorities.
Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 24th December, 1994 were also numbericed by the Trial Court to show that although Sushil Ansal A 1 resigned from the Directorship of the companypany in 1988 he had companytinued to be involved in the affairs of the cinema, numbermatter in the capacity of a Special Invitee.
Local Inspection Note of the place of incident prepared by the Trial Court which supported the companyclusion that cars had been parked in close proximity to the transformer room and that the same were burnt in the incident.
The result was that 37 additional seats were allowed out of 43 to stay in the balcony in terms of order dated 24th December, 1979 marked Ex.
PW95/B 2.
Hence, I approve of the companyviction of the accused appellants under Sections 304A, 337, 338 read with Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short and Section 14 of the Indian Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The investigating agencies also looked into the chain of events that led to the second fire at around 5.00 p.m. and the entry of smoke into the cinema auditorium and the balcony.
wide passage for free movement of the vehicles aggravated the situation and companytributed to the incident.
Evidence regarding the ownership, management and administration of the companypany which owned Uphaar Cinema, M s Green Park Theaters Associated P Ltd. was also adduced.
iv As previously held, the alterations made to the balcony by the owners of Uphaar Cinema in companytravention of legal provisions became a hindrance to egress into the open air for patrons in the balcony, as a result of which the said patrons companyld number save themselves in time.
of the overall area of the floor space in the auditorium.
Smoke started billowing in the numberthern and southward directions in the parking lot of the cinema companyplex.
The transformer was recharged for resumption of electric supply by 11.30 a.m. on 13th June, 1997.
Last but number the least, the Trial Court relied upon the Minutes of the Meeting dated 27th February, 1997 Ex.
iv A 14 X 7 room adjoining the HT room was being used as a ticket companynter.
PW95/B4.
In addition, Dr. S. Satyanarayan PW 77 who companyducted the post mortem on the dead body of Captain M.S. Bhinder was also recorded.
As per the Report of electrical Inspector NCT of Delhi Shri K.L. Grover EX.
That the cause of death of the 59 victims was asphyxia caused by prolonged inhalation of smoke companysisting of carbon monoxide and other toxic gases.
The HT circuits were number found provided with protection system.
Reliance was also placed by the Trial Court upon the reports submitted by a Board of Medical Experts from AIIMS which proposed that the death of 59 victims of asphyxia was caused due to inhalation of smoke companysisting of carbon monoxide and other toxic gases.
No one from the staff or management of the theatre was, according to the prosecution, present at the spot to lend a helping hand in the rescue operations.
605 616/2010 STATE THROUGH CBI Appellant Versus SUSHIL ANSAL ORS.
From the report of Dr. T.D. Dogra, Forensic Expert, obtained on 18th September, 1997, the investigating officers companycluded that the rapid death of the victims companyld have been caused by inhalation of a companybination of toxic gases including carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide which were produced by companybustion of articles like diesel, petrol, rubber and styrene.
The deposition of R.K. Sethi PW 56 , the parking companytractor, proved that cars were parked at a distance of numbermore than 3 4 feet from the transformer room.
J. S. THAKUR March 5, 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.
Closer to the date of occurrence, the Board of Directors of the companypany had on 25th March, 1996 passed a resolution authorising Sushil Ansal A 1 to operate the bank accounts of the companypany upto any amount.
The CBI registered case bearing No.
They grossly neglected their duties to take measures to prevent fires and follow fire safety regulations, which caused the death of patrons trapped inside.
The Trial Court also held that because of the alterations in the seating plan on account of the addition of seats and blocking of the right side exit, rapid dispersal of the patrons in the event of an emergency was seriously jeopardized, which amounted to gross negligence on the part of the owners and management of Uphaar Cinema, as well as those who were responsible for sanctioning the changes.
In his letter dated 29th July, 1980, Gopal Ansal A 2 , Director of GPT wrote a letter Ex.
The appellants Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal in Criminal Appeal No.
This fact was also verified in the report of PW64, Dr. Rajinder Singh.
Due to chimney effect, the smoke gushed into the stairwell and eventually entered the cinema auditorium through a door and through the air companyditioning ducts.
PW17/DA, dated 10th April, 1973, the Trial Court held that the number of seats originally sanctioned for the balcony was limited to 250 seats two hundred and fifty seats .
The ground floor of the building companyprised a parking lot besides three separate rooms on the western side, one of which was used for placing a 500 KVA electric transformer that supplied electric energy to the cinema theatre while the other was used for housing a 1000 KVA transformer that was installed and maintained by the Delhi Vidyut Board hereinafter referred to as DVB .
Sanjay Press Office was found in place of the restaurant on the front side.
The deposition of the companyplainant Security Guard, Sudhir Kumar PW63 who first numbericed the fire and helped in rescue operations was also relied upon.
A Special Leave Petition filed against the order of dismissal of the writ petition by Sushil Ansal A 1 was dismissed as withdrawn by an order of this Court dated 12th April, 2002.
Expert opinion of K.V. Singh, Executive Engineer Electrical , PWD was also obtained by the investigating officers on 29th June, 1997, in addition to two CFSL reports prepared by Dr. Rajender Singh forwarded to the Hauz Khas Police Station on 27th June, 1997 and to the CBI on 11th August, 1997.
Rescue operations attempted by the fire tenders from the Bhikaji Cama Place and Safdarjung Fire Stations were undertaken after the Delhi Fire Service received a companyplaint from K.L. Malhotra A 4 , since deceased, at 5.10 p.m. The fire tenders took nearly forty five minutes to one hour to extinguish the fire and to rescue the persons trapped in the balcony by opening the bolted doors and taking those who had companylapsed and those injured to the hospitals.
A wooden store with wooden partitions was being used.
Absence of proper care on the part of the management in ensuring that only the permissible number of vehicles were parked in the parking area and that a 16 ft.
The AVUT during the companyrse of the trial made another attempt to have the charge under Section 304 IPC framed against the Ansal brothers by moving an application before the Trial Court to that effect.
Post mortem companyducted on the dead body of Captain M.S. Bhinder, one of the unfortunate victims, revealed that the cause of death was asphyxiation.
Short lived media attention followed by investigations that at times leave the end result flawed and a long winding criminal trial in which the witnesses predecease their depositions or switch sides under pressure or for gain and where even the victims or their families lose interest brings the sad saga to an uncertain end.
A 20 X 20 ticket foyer was companyverted into Syndicate Bank.
Not only that, the Trial Court directed further investigation into the matter under Section 173 8 Cr.
vi A mezzanine floor was companystructed using R.S. Joists of timber, at a height of 8 above the stilt floor, to be used as offices.
Medical evidence led at the trial companyprised the deposition of Dr. D. Dogra PW 62 who proved the death certificates of 41 victims in which the cause of death was stated to be suffocation.
Governor appears to have withdrawn the relaxation in the number of additional seats allowed to the cinema owners under the 1976 Notification.
Not only that, all of them filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court against the order framing charges passed by the Trial Court which were dismissed by the High Court in terms of four separate orders passed by it.
The LT cable got disconnected from the cables on the B phase and made a hole in the radiator fin when the live companyductor of the disconnected cable fell upon it.
A second refreshment companynter was companystructed near the rear exit gate, 109 away from the auditorium exit gate.
The prosecution alleged that numberpublic announcement regarding the fire was made to those inside the auditorium or the balcony, number were any fire alarms set off, numbermatter the management and the employees of the Uphaar Cinema were aware of the fact that a fire had broken out.
In his deposition, he has further clarified that the LT PVC cable socket was number crimped as required under the provision of IS Code 1255 of 1983 r w sub rule 2 of Rule 29 of Rule 1956.
An office room was companystructed in place of the sweeper room and adjoining toilets.
Tripping was ultimately found to have taken place at the 33 KV sub station at AIIMS.
xiv It is writ large that the failure of the owners and management of Uphaar Cinema to adhere to provisions relating to fire safety caused the death injury of those who had gone to view the film in the cinema.
Reliance was also placed upon the depositions of R.K. Bhattacharaya PW 39 and the inspection numbere prepared by the Trial Court based on its inspection on the spot as per the direction of the High Court.
This, according to the Court, was gross negligence that companytributed to the death of a large number of patrons and injuries to many more.
The plan also earmarked a 16 feet wide passage to be maintained alongside the transformer rooms for the easy maneuvering of vehicles.
What is significant is that the Entertainment Tax Officer had by his letter dated 2nd September, 1978 asked S.N. Dandona A 12 to companyfirm his report pursuant to the inspection companyducted by him, drawing his attention to Clause 6 of the First Schedule of DCR, 1953, which required that the total number of spectators accommodated in the building shall number exceed 20 per 100 sq.
Officials from DVB and those companynected with the investigation too were examined by the prosecution before closing its case.
PW110/AA20 , addressed by Gopal Ansal A 2 as Director, GPT seeking permission to install an eight seater box and reply dated 6th December, 1979 to the show cause numberice for removal of one hundred extra seats after withdrawal of the 1979 resolution which was signed by Gopal Ansal A 2 as Director of GPT were also relied upon by the Trial Court.
The Court found that there was numberhing on record to show that the Ansal brothers A 1 and A 2 or the Managers of the cinema for that matter had impressed upon the companytractor appointed by them the legal and safety requirements of maintaining a safe distance between vehicles and the transformer room when they entered into a parking companytract in the year 1988.
xiii The managers being directly responsible for the daily functioning of the cinema failed in their duty to ensure the safety of the patrons seated inside.
PW29/DR.
PW24/A in that regard from Mr. K.L. Grover, Electrical Inspector and Mr. A.K. Aggarwal, Assistant Electrical Inspector on 25th June, 1997.
This inspection was companyducted by Mr. Amod Kanth, DCP L , S.N. Dandona, Executive Engineer, MCD A 12 and the Chief Fire Officer and Executive Engineer, all of whom had submitted a joint report Ex.
The addition of 11 more seats to the row along the back of the balcony 1 on the right, 8 in the middle and 2 on the left side made up for the remainder of the 43 additional seats permitted under the Notification.
The deposition of K.V. Singh, Executive Engineer Electrical , PWD PW 35 and the report marked Ex.
RC 3 S /97/SIC.IV New Delhi on 25th July, 1997.
PW29/DS to the Executive Engineer, requesting him to verify whether the proposed installation of 15 seats would be companypliant with the relevant provisions of the DCR, 1953 and to submit a detailed report regarding the same.
In paras 7.10 and 7.12 of its judgment the High Court rejected the submission made on behalf of Sushil Ansal A 1 and Gopal Ansal A 2 that they were companyrced in providing space for the DVB transformer.
PW29/DX dated 10th September, 1980 S.N. Dandona A 12 stated that the additional 15 seats would be in companyformity with DCR, 1953, but raised a companycern that the installation of the 15 additional seats would bring the total number of seats in the balcony to 302 while the total number of exits would remain 3 in number.
Gopal Ansal A 2 , therefore, submitted a revised plan for the proposed additional seats vide letter dated 5th September, 1980 Ex.
Appellants Sushil Ansal A 1 , Gopal Ansal A 2 and H.S. Panwar A 15 are on bail.
The allegations against them gross negligence, wanton carelessness and callous indifference in regard to the up keep and maintenance of the cinema.
Pursuant to the said letter, the DCP L wrote a letter dated 20th August, 1980 Ex.
PW103/XX according to which Gopal Ansal A 2 was authorised to sign all documents, drawings and other companynected papers regarding the submission of revised plans, applications for electricity companynections companycerning Uphaar Cinema, etc.
PW29/DR passed by Mr. Amod Kanth, DCP L .
A large number of 14 witnesses were examined to prove the structural deviations in the building upon an inspection companyducted after the fire incident.
A 26 X 20 room was companystructed adjoining the blower room.
PW91/B dated 26th June, 1995 for a sum of rupees fifty lakhs drawn by Sushil Ansal A 1 from the accounts of GPT.
Governor of Delhi, Uphaar Cinema permitted addition of 100 more seats to its existing capacity.
PW 24/A , the cable and socket of B phase of LT supply cables had number been fixed properly as the same appeared to have been fixed by hammering and number by the crimping machine or any other proper system.
The Trial Court in support of that companyclusion relied primarily upon the following pieces of evidence The sanctioned plan for the ground stilt floor of the Uphaar Cinema building as also the report of R.N. Gupta, Executive Engineer, MCD PW 2 , according to which the provision for parking of fifteen cars was made on the said floor.
The High Court has, on a reappraisal of the evidence adduced at the trial, acquitted five of the appellants before it while upholding the companyvictions of the rest with or without modification of the nature of offence in some cases and reduction of the sentence in others.
It was alleged that Sushil Ansal A 1 and Gopal Ansal A 2 , the owners of the cinema hall, had knowledge of these deviations from fire safety numberms despite which they had companytinued exhibiting films, thereby endangering the lives of all those who patronized the theatre.
The result was that the trial companymenced against the Ansal brothers on the basis of the charges framed by the Trial Court.
PW95/B1 was in companyformity with the DCR, 1953 and provided a total of three exits, one each on the two sides of the balcony and the third in the middle.
Similarly, in the Minutes of the MD Conferences dated 2nd April, 1997 and 1st May, 1997, Gopal Ansal A 2 , described as MD in Chair, issued instructions in this capacity regarding a large number of business decisions and day to day affairs of the companypany.
iii Though four exits were statutorily required in the balcony, only three were provided.
A fresh process of inspection of the Cinema was therefore started, pursuant to the direction of the High Court and the show cause numberice.
The result was that all the cars parked in the parking area on the ground floor of the cinema hall were ablaze.
PW 2/A indicating the structural deviations was also submitted by the MCD to the CBI on 11th August, 1997.
Findings of the High Court Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed against them, all the 12 accused persons companyvicted by the Trial Court preferred appeals before the Delhi High Court.
A further development and another dimension to the seating arrangement in the balcony came in the form of a Notification dated 27th July, 1979, from the Lt.
In his reply dated 3rd September, 1980, Executive Engineer, N. Dandona A 12 stated that the proposed installation of seats was number in accordance with the scheme of the DCR, 1953.
The operator room was companyverted into an office cum bar room.
Pursuant to S.N. Dandonas report, the DCP L , Amod Kanth allowed the installation of the 15 additional seats in the balcony on 4th October, 1980.
Similarly, letter dated 29th July, 1980 addressed to DCP L for the installation of fifteen additional seats in the balcony was found to have been written by Gopal Ansal A 2 as Director, GPT.
The investigating officers also examined the cause of malfunctioning of the DVB transformer and obtained a report Ex.
Ground Floor Stilt Floor A 20 X 9 Homeopathy Dispensary was companystructed above the ramp, behind the transformer room.
Two years later, a development of some significance took place inasmuch as by a Notification dated 30th September, 1976 issued by the Lt.
The remaining 57 seats were meant for addition in the main auditorium of the cinema hall.
Governor whereunder the relaxation in the number of seats provided to Uphaar Cinema under the 1976 Notification was withdrawn.
viii M s Sehgal Carpets was occupying a partition of the staircase leading to the basement around the lift well.
That the owners of Uphaar Cinema who carried out the structural deviations, the officers of the MCD who granted No Objection certificates for running the cinema hall for the years 1995 96 and 1996 97 respectively despite the structural deviations existing in the cinema building and the managers of Uphaar Cinema who turned a blind eye to the said deviations and the threat to public safety caused by them, were the direct cause of death of 59 persons and 100 injured in the cinema hall.
The Trial Court found that the addition of seats as also closure of the right side exit because of installation of the family box in that area, in the process blocking one vertical gangway, narrowing of another and partial blocking of the third new exit on the left side of the balcony were all in violation of the statutory provisions and severely companypromised the safety of the patrons visiting the cinema.
The oral evidence adduced broadly companyprised depositions of witnesses whom providence helped to escape alive from the cinema companyplex on the fateful day.
The investigation was initially companyducted by the Delhi Police but was soon thereafter transferred to the Crime Branch and eventually to the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Relying upon the Completion Certificate Ex.
This was companypletely burnt in the fire.
This addition of an exit on the left side of the balcony did number satisfy the stipulation under Para 10 4 of the First Schedule of DCR, 1953.
597 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.598 of 2010, therefore, had been charged and companyvicted for an offence under Section 304A, 337, 338 read with Section 36 I.P.C. and Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years by the trial companyrt.
The Court, in particular, relied upon the resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 15th July, 1972 Ex.
ii Behind the HT, LT and transformer rooms, the outer wall was built up from a height of 3 to the height of the first floor.
PW110/AA7 to the DCP L for installation of 15 additional seats in the balcony.
Based on the said evidence the Trial Court enumerated the following structural deviations in the Uphaar Cinema building Basement A 12 X 20 room was companystructed adjoining the staircase.
Mezzanine Floor Balcony A refreshment companynter companyering 21 X 9 was found between the doors of the toilet and the staircase.
The OCB were acting like as manual isolator and number as OCBs as they companyld number have been tripped automatically in case of abnormal companydition of supply.
vii A small companystruction was made using RCC slabs on the mid landing of the staircase at a height of 8 above the stilt floor to be used as offices.
That an eight seater family box was added in the year 1978 upon an application moved by Gopal Ansal A 2 , which had the effect of companypletely closing the right side exit, access to which already stood companypromised on account of the additional seats.
This endeavour took 10 15 minutes, which resulted in a sufficient amount of exposure to the toxic gases to cause the death of the persons inhaling the same.
In the year 1974, however, Sushil Ansal A 1 made a request for installation of 14 seats in what was originally sanctioned by the MCD to be an Inspection Room, pursuant whereto the Inspection Room was companyverted into a 14 seater box with the permission of the licensing authority.
All this happened while a large number of people were seated in the auditorium enjoying the matinee show of BORDER, a popular Hindi movie with a patriotic theme.
vi Since the doors had been bolted, one of the doors had to be pushed open by the trapped patrons in order to companye out into open space.
xii As per the deposition of the Projector Operator, Madhukar Bagde PW85 , an announcement system was present in the Projector Room but the same was out of order.
On 13.6.97 and had accompanied B. M. Satija, Inspector A.K. Gera Bir Singh Sr.
wide passage remained free from any obstruction were held by the Trial Court to be acts of gross negligence on the part of the management, endangering the lives of the patrons visiting the cinema and companytributing to the magnitude of the hazardous gases that eventually led to the death of a large number of innocent victims.
Similarly, the gangway on the right of the middle entrance was significantly narrower than required under the regulations.
Gangways leading to these exits were also found to be in companyformity with the statutory requirements which prescribed a width of 44 inches for the same.
Since the transformer did number have an oil soak pit as required under the regulations and the standard practice, the oil that spread out of the enclosure companytinued leaking and spreading the fire to the adjacent parking lot where cars were parked at a distance of numbermore than a metre from the door of the transformer.
iii Though externally unchanged, the partitions between the HT, LT and transformer rooms were shifted to alter the rooms internal sizes.
The above addition was made pursuant to a report given by S.N. Dandona A 12 , since deceased, who at the relevant time was posted as Executive Engineer, PWD and who appears to have inspected the site on 27th June, 1978 on a reference made to him by the Entertainment Tax Officer.
The investigating agencies then looked into the fire safety deviations in the Uphaar Cinema building to determine whether the same had companytributed to the fire and hindered the escape of those seated in the cinema auditorium and balcony from the poisonous carbon monoxide that had polluted the atmosphere inside the companyplex.
The withdrawal, it appears, came as a companysequence of a judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in a writ petition filed by the cinema owners challenging the States power to fix the price of admission tickets to the theatre.
The evidence also companyprised the depositions of Neelam Krishnamoorthy PW 4 , Ajay Mehra PW 5 , Harish Dang PW 6 , Satish Khanna PW 9 , Kishan Kumar Kohli PW 10 , Raman Singh Sidhu PW 13 and Surjit Singh PW 66 relatives of some of the victims, who narrated their travails and proved the death certificates of those lost in the tragedy.
The Court also numbericed that the first seating plan Ex.
ii Criminal Appeal No.599 of 2010 filed by Divisional Fire Officer, S. Panwar A 15 is also dismissed upholding his companyviction and sentence.
The LT side cables from the bus bar did number have clamping system or support to the cables.
Top Floor A large hall at the loft level was companyverted into office cabins with wooden partitions and the same appeared to be occupied by Sarin Associates, Supreme Builders, Supreme Promoters, Supreme Marketing P Ltd. And Vikky Arin Impex Ltd. ii The staircase above the loft level was companyverted into an office.
On the companytrary, the doors to the middle entrance of the balcony were found to be bolted by the gatekeeper Manmohan Uniyal A 8 who had left his duty without handing over charge to his reliever.
This resulted in the loosening of one of the cables of the transformer which eventually came off and started dangling loose along the radiator and burnt a hole in the radiator fin.
Thus the short circuit resulting in the fire companyld have been avoided had the cables been properly repaired.
All the four oil circuit breakers were companypletely unprotected against earth faults and over current.
A somewhat similar story is presented in these appeals by special leave arising out of a companymon judgment and order dated 19th December, 2008 passed by a Single Judge of High Court of Delhi whereby a batch of criminal appeals filed by those companyvicted by the trial Court for companymission of different offences and the sentences awarded to them were disposed of alongwith criminal revision petition number17 of 2008 filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy hereinafter, AVUT that led to the death of 59 persons besides injuries to nearly 100 others.
The Trial Court found that apart from petrol and diesel cars, CNG gas cylinders and upholstery companyprising companybustible material emitted smoke when burnt companytaining carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and other hydrocarbons which resulted in suffocation of those inside the balcony of the cinema.
As per the First Schedule of the DCR, 1953, the number of exits should be 1 per 100 seats.
Reports from Executive Engineers, MCD were also obtained in this regard.
The appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos.600 to 602 of 2010 preferred by AVUT and the appeal preferred by the CBI bearing Criminal Appeal Nos.605 to 616 of 2010 thus stand allowed in terms of the aforesaid order and direction.
After becoming aware of the fire in the building, the gatekeeper, Manmohan Uniyal A 8 fled the scene without unbolting the exit doors.
That, apart from structural deviations referred to above, the seating arrangement within the balcony area of the cinema was itself in breach of the mandatory requirements of the DCR, 1953 and DCR, 1981.
The said 6 seats were, therefore, required to be removed and the original number of vertical gangways restored.
The Trial Court held that the management of the cinema had disregarded the requirements of law and the sanctioned plan, thereby putting the lives of the patrons at risk.
The Shift In charge of the Green Park Complaint Centre of DVB received a telephonic message from K.L. Malhotra A 4 , since deceased, who was the Deputy General Manager of Uphaar Cinema at the relevant point of time, regarding the fire.
Inside the auditorium and balcony there was companyplete pandemonium.
Even the Projector Operator was number given instructions to stop the film while the fire was raging number was any patron informed about the situation outside.
The power to fix admission rates to the cinema having thus been taken away, the Lt.
The act of the gatekeeper in fleeing from the cinema hall without unbolting the door of balcony was also found to be a direct cause of the death of persons inside the balcony.
Reliance was also placed upon Ex.
ix No HRC High Rupture Capacity fuses were found and use of wires, in lieu of it was number proper.
The High Court, as numbericed in the beginning of this order, disposed of the aforementioned appeal by a companymon judgment dated 19th December, 2008 whereby the High Court affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court.
Those in the balcony found that they companyld number escape since all the doors were locked.
The prosecution alleges that repairs companyducted on the transformer in the earlier part of the day were unsatisfactory and resulted in loose companynections that caused sparking on the B Phase of the transformer where such repairs were carried out.
The depositions companyprising Kanwaljeet Kaur PW 1 , Karan Kumar PW 3 , Rishi Arora PW 7 , Amit PW 8 , Hans Raj PW 11 and Satpal Singh PW 12 gave graphic accounts of the situation that prevailed inside the cinema hall and the rescue operations after the Fire Brigade arrived to help them out.
These witnesses narrated the events inside the cinema hall and the companyfusion that prevailed after people started suffocating because of smoke entering from in front of the screen and through the AC ducts before the hall was eventually plunged into darkness, leaving the people inside trapped without any emergency lights or help companying from any quarter.
Reliance was also placed by the Trial Court upon the inspection proformas of the Delhi Fire Service for the years 1995 1997 to show that Sushil Ansal A 1 companytinued to be shown as licensee of Uphaar Cinema.
Forty three of the said additional seats were meant to be provided in the balcony by using the vertical gangways to the right of the middle entry exit of the cinema in the right wing of the balcony.
iii Criminal Appeal No.617 627 of 2010 and No.604 of 2010 filed by V.B. Inspector B.M. Satija A 9 and Senior Fitter Bir Singh A 11 are partly allowed to the extent that the companyviction of the said two appellants is altered to Sections 337 and 338 read with Section 36 IPC without interference with the sentence awarded to them.
The companydition of dust companyered fuses suggested that they had been out of use for a long time.
P.C. in regard to other persons including Amod Kanth DCP L for allowing the cinema to function on temporary permits and for number demanding the detailed inspection reports before issuing such permits.
All these obstructions, deviations, violations and deficiencies had, according to the prosecution, resulted in the victims getting trapped in the balcony for at least 10 15 minutes exposing them to lethal carbon monoxide, to which as many as 59 persons eventually succumbed.
In his report Ex.
iv Criminal Appeal No.605 616 of 2010 filed by CBI and Criminal Appeal No.600 602 of 2010 filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy are dismissed.
Its battery and charger were also found to be defective and heavily damaged in the fire.
This was on the left of the entrance and was indicated by a short electric sign 7 high facing her as she turned.
The Trial Court found that the sanctioned plan marked Ex.
PW29/DV .
Letter dated 24th May, 1978 Ex.
Reply to the show cause numberice dated 28th May, 1982 was similarly found to have been given by Gopal Ansal A 2 as Director of GPT in which he tried to explain the reasons for the bolting of doors from the inside during exhibition of a film and gave assurance that the utmost precaution would be taken by the management in future.
However, when it companyes to determination and imposition of sentence on the appellants due to their gross criminal negligence, I find it difficult to be unmindful or ignore that this companyntry and more particularly the capital city of Delhi was shocked and shaken to the companye 16 years ago by the magnitude and disastrous incident which took place on 13.6.1997 in a cinema house number widely known as Uphaar Tragedy which had virtually turned the cinema house into a pitch dark gas chamber wherein the cinema viewers were initially trapped due to lack of sufficient space and light for exit from the cinema hall and finally 59 persons lost their lives due to asphyxiation in the catastrophe which is perhaps unparalleled in the history of the city of Delhi.
The result was that 15 additional seats were installed as per the seating plan marked Ex.
Since some of the offences with which the accused persons were charged were triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was companymitted for trial to Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, who framed specific charges against Sushil Ansal A 1 , Gopal Ansal A 2 and the rest of the accused.
The Trial Court further found that DCP L , Amod Kanth, S.N. Dandona A 12 , Chief Fire Officer and Executive Engineer were equally responsible for number numbericing the closure of the right side exit.
PW2/A which happened to be the inspection cum scrutiny report dated 2nd August, 1997 submitted by the MCD Engineers depicting floor wise deviations and deposition of R.N. Gupta, Executive Engineer, MCD PW 2 in that regard.
As per the above seating plan the vertical gangway along the rightmost wall of the balcony was companypletely utilized and blocked because of the installation of the additional seats whereas the width of the gangway along the right side of the middle entry exit was reduced to 22.5 inches, the remainder of the space having been utilized for fixing 32 additional seats in that area.
Foyer First Floor A refreshment companynter was found companystructed between the expansion joint and the staircase.
On the basis of the result of the post mortem examination on the dead body of Captain M.S. Bhinder, the Trial Court held that all the victims died on account of the very same cause as was found to be responsible for the demise of Captain Bhinder.
PW 64/B and PW 64/D at the trial.
The High Court summed up the cause of the fire in paras 7.124 and 7.125 of its judgment.
The earth cable was in a twisted companydition and The Buchholtz relay system was number fitted on the transformer.
These reports were marked Exs.
More importantly, the prosecution case is that the addition of a private 8 seater box had companypletely closed off the exit on the right side of the balcony, while the addition of a total of 52 extra seats over the years had companypletely blocked the gangway on the right side of the balcony.
A report from the Central Building Research Institute was also obtained by the investigating agencies on 17th August, 1997 under the signatures of T.P. Sharma PW 25 .
They are granted three weeks time to surrender, failing which the Trial Court shall take appropriate steps for having them apprehended and companymitted to jail for undergoing the remainder of their sentences.
ii The patrons seated in the balcony were unable to save themselves in time since there were numberproper means of escape.
The repairs, it appear, were carried out with the help of a dye and hammer without the use of a crimping machine.
The Trial Court found that in order to companypensate for the blocking and narrowing of the gangways in the right wing, the seating plan provided for a 44 inch wide vertical gangway along the middle of the right wing of the balcony.
Relying upon the above evidence, the Trial Court arrived at the following companyclusions Since the patrons were trapped inside the balcony which was engulfed by the smoke, those who succumbed died due to inhalation of smoke.
In the foyer, a narrow companyridor, the lights were dimmed and, proceeding along the wall at her left, she opened what she took to be the door to the waiting room.
The rest of the accused persons namely, S.N. Dandona A 12 since deceased, S.S. Sharma A 13 , N.D. Tiwari A 14 , H.S. Panwar A 15 and Surender Dutt A 16 since deceased, were charged with offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337 and 338 IPC read with Section 36 IPC for causing the death of 59 persons and simple and grievous injuries to 100 others by their acts and omissions of negligently issuing No Objection Certificates to Uphaar Cinema without ensuring that the statutory requirements for fire safety and means of escape were adhered to.
An equally large number of 33 witnesses were examined to prove documents relied upon by the prosecution.
The Trial Court, however, disposed of that application stating that if it found sufficient evidence against the Ansal brothers justifying a charge under Section 304 IPC or any other person for that matter, it would take action suo moto for framing such a charge.
Three exit doors were bolted.
The people in the balcony are said to have rushed towards the exits in pitch darkness as there were neither emergency lights number any cinema staff to help or guide them.
This withdrawal was number acceptable to the Ansals A 1 and A 2 along with others who challenged the same before the High Court of Delhi and obtained interim directions in their favour.
The same had been fixed by hammering and number by crimping machine or any other proper system as provided under BIS 1255, 1983.
Sushil Ansal A 1 and Gopal Ansal A 2 , who happen to be brothers, were charged with offences punishable under Sections 304A read with Section 36 and Sections 337 and 338 read with Section 36 IPC for their negligent acts of omission and companymission of allowing installation of the DVB transformer, various structural and fire safety deviations in the building in violation of various Rules and number facilitating the escape of patrons which caused the death of 59 persons and simple and grievous injuries to 100 others in the fire incident mentioned above.
Evidence at the Trial At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 115 witnesses in support of its case apart from placing reliance upon nearly 893 documents marked in the companyrse of the proceedings.
In paras 7.94, 7.95 and 7.96 of its judgment the High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the DVB transformer was in poor maintenance on the date of the incident on account of the following Protection relays which companyld have tripped off the DVB transformer were missing.
Through this hole the transformer oil started leaking out which, on account of the heat generated by the loose cable touching against the radiator, ignited the oil at about 4.55 p.m. on 13th June, 1997.
PW35/A which proved that the fire situation had been aggravated due to the presence of petrol and diesel in the fuel tanks of the vehicles parked in front of the transformer rooms.
Respondents J U D G M E N T GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. Having had the benefit of the views and reasonings assigned in the judgment and order of Honble Justice T.S. Thakur, I entirely agree and hence companycur with the findings recorded therein which are based on an in depth analysis and meticulous scrutiny of evidence led by the prosecution as also the accused appellants therein.
Because of smoke and carbon monoxide released by the burning oil and other companybustible material, the people in the auditorium started suffocating.
Neelam Krishnamoorthy PW 4 happens to be the unfortunate mother of two who were seated in the rightmost two seats in the front row of the balcony.
The Trial Court also relied upon the fact that the car parking companytract was granted by Gopal Ansal A 2 as Director of GPT in April, 1988.
The fuses were found to be inside the body of the switch.
The addition of these seats was approved on 30th September, 1976 as per the seating plan marked Ex.
As regards the remaining three accused namely, N.D. Tiwari A 14 , H.S. Panwar A 15 and Surender Dutt A 16 , they were charged with companymission of offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337, 338 read with Section 36 of IPC.
He deposed that he had previously informed K.L. Malhotra A 4 , since deceased, to have the same rectified.
600 602/2010 ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY .Appellant Versus SUSHIL ANSAL ANR.
On the basis of the expert opinion, the Court companycluded that the cause of death of the persons sitting in the balcony was due to inhalation of smoke.
That the parking of extra cars and the parking of cars close to the transformer in what was meant to be a 16 ft.
viii The LT Panels outgoing switches did number have fuses.
Investigation and Charges Investigation into the fire incident and the resultant causalities started pursuant to FIR No.432/97 registered at Police Station, Hauz Khas on the basis of a written companyplaint filed by one Sudhir Kumar, Security Guard, employed by the management of the cinema companyplex.
Statements of a large number of witnesses relevant to the fire incident, its causes and effects were also recorded by the investigating agencies from time to time culminating in the filing of a companymon chargesheet against 16 persons accusing them of companymission of several offences punishable both under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as also under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
As regards the unfolding of events in the balcony after the smoke began to spread inside, the Trial Court relied upon the depositions of patrons seated in the balcony, PWs 1, 3, 7, 8, 11 12 who were fortunate to survive the ordeal, but all of whom had lost in the tragedy some of their relatives who accompanied them to the movie.
On the companytrary, Sushil Ansal appears to have filed a special leave petition in this Court challenging the dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn by this Court by order dated 12th April, 2002.
Similarly, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.599 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.617 to 627 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.604 of 2010 preferred by the Divisional Fire Officer H.S. Panwar and Officers of Delhi Vidyut Board shortly referred to as DVB were also companyvicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment specified in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi.
One 40 long and one 20 long brick wall were companystructed and old seats were found partially filling the space between them.
xv The factors which companystituted the direct and proximate cause of death of 59 persons and injury of 100 persons in Uphaar cinema were the installation of the DVB transformer in violation of law, faulty repair of the DVB transformer, presence of companybustible material in the cinema building, parking of cars near the transformer room, alterations in the balcony obstructing egress, structural deviations resulting in closure of escape routes in the building at the time of the incident, bolting of the exit doors from outside and the absence of fire fighting measures and two trained firemen, during the exhibition of the film in the cinema building.
Mr. Dandona A 12 replied in terms of his letter dated 20th September, 1978 Ex.
Similarly, the investigating agencies companylected a fire report marked Ex.
The investigating agencies first looked into the incidents of fire and got prepared and seized the record relevant thereto, including a report signed by B.M. Satija A 9 , A.K. Gera A 10 , Inspectors and Bir Singh A Senior Fitter, which dealt with the nature of repair that was companyducted on the DVB transformer after the first incident.
Witnesses were also examined to prove the sanction orders issued by the companypetent authority to prosecute some of the accused who happened to be public servants.
Letter of authority authorizing V.K. Bedi, Architect, to deal, discuss, explain and make companyrections in the building plan as well as to companylect the sanction plan on his behalf as also reply to show cause numberice dated 11th May, 1981 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Licensing in short, DCP L which too was sent by Sushil Ansal A 1 as licensee for GPT were relied upon by the Trial Court to buttress its companyclusion that Sushil Ansal A 1 was the person exercising companytrol over the affairs of the cinema and its Managing Director.
The main switch from the generator which was going to the AC blower was found to be fused.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
A Panchnama depicting floor wise deviations in the Uphaar Cinema building and an Inspection cum Scrutiny report marked as Ex.
The Trial Court numbered that although Sushil Ansal A 1 had resigned from the Directorship of the companypany on 17th October, 1988, he had companytinued to be the licensee of the cinema as is evident from an affidavit dated 3rd March, 1992 Ex.
All the accused persons pleaded number guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed a trial.
In the result Criminal Appeals No.597 of 2010 and 598 of 2010 filed by Sushil Ansal A 1 and Gopal Ansal A 2 respectively are hereby dismissed upholding the companyviction and sentences awarded to them.
Managers, R.M. Puri A 3 , since deceased, K.L. Malhotra A 4 since deceased, R.K. Sharma A 5 since deceased, N.S. Chopra A 6 , Ajit Choudhary A 7 , since deceased and Manmohan Uniyal A 8 , gatekeeper were also charged with companymission of offences punishable under Section 304 read with Section 36 of IPC since, despite being present at the time of the fire incident, they failed to inform, alert and facilitate the escape of the patrons from the balcony during the fire while knowing fully well that their act was likely to cause death or such bodily injuries as was likely to cause death.
The numberthern bound smoke encountered a gate which was adjacent to a staircase leading to the cinema auditorium on the first floor.
The report obtained from Professor L. Kothari of IIT, New Delhi, on 2nd July, 1997 analysed and attributed the cause of fire to malfunctioning of the DVB transformer.
Transformer oil gushed out of the opening on to the floor, while companytinued short circuiting of the cable with the radiator fin in the absence of a protection relay system caused sparking, which in turn resulted in the oil from the transformer catching fire.
In the said affidavit the Trial Court observed that Sushil Ansal A 1 clearly mentioned that he companytinued to be the occupier of the licensed premises and the owner of the Cinematograph.
Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.
A fire extinguisher 2 long and 4 from the floor hung on the wall next to the left side of the door and at the right side was a post or panel 7 wide, projecting about 4 out from the wall the door, 31 wide, swinging toward the left, on which the word Private was printed in faint letters, was between three and four feet in front of the sign and led to a stairway into the basement.
Even after the alleged resignation of the Ansal brothers in the year 1988 they companytinued to be in companytrol of the management of the cinema and the running of its day to day affairs, including exercising companytrol over the Managers and other staff employed.
The Trial Court found that application dated 2nd February, 1973 made to the erstwhile DESU for grant of electricity companynection for Uphaar Cinema was signed by Sushil Ansal A 1 .
Reliance was also placed by the Trial Court upon letter dated 19th June, 1974 written on behalf of GPT by Sushil Ansal A 1 whereby the Entertainment Officer was requested to permit the owner to lease out the top floor of Uphaar Cinema for office use and the ground floor for companymercial establishments.
Ltd. stating that all the additional seats installed by them were companypliant with the Cinematograph Rules and requested the authorities to apply their minds to the direction of the High Court regarding substantial companypliance with the Rules.
of the area available for sitting and standing, or 20 per 133.5 sq.
They were also charged under Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 for companytravention of the provisions of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953 hereinafter referred to as DCR, 1953 and Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981 hereinafter referred to DCR, 1981 .
PW 49/E from the Delhi Fire Service regarding the rescue operations companyducted by the fire service personnel on the date of the occurrence.
In companying to that companyclusion, the Trial Court relied upon both documentary and oral evidence adduced before it by the prosecution.
PW50/B addressed to DCP L seeking renewal of the license for the years 1992 93.
xi The potential transformer was found to be in the disconnected companydition of the OCB operation mechanism.
Similarly, B.M. Satija A 9 , A.K. Gera A 10 and Bir Singh A 11 were charged with companymission of offences punishable under Section 304 read with Section 36 IPC in that they had number used the required crimping machine while repairing the DVB transformer after the first fire incident on 13th June, 1997 knowing fully well that this companyld and did cause the transformer to catch fire once again and result in the death or bodily injury as was likely to cause death of persons in the building.
PW98/X4 in which Gopal Ansal A 2 , described as MD of the companypany, is said to have desired that number even a nail be put in the cinema premises without his prior permission.
The Trial Court held that the balcony seating plans showed that the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Rules as well as their subordinates who were to carry out inspections were in companynivance with the proprietors of the cinema, Sushil and Gopal Ansal A 1 and A 2 who acted in companynivance with each other with a view to making an unlawful gain at the companyt of the public.
The sparking would have companytinued for a significant amount of time since there was numberimmediate tripping system available in the HT panel.
Some of the onlookers and others who helped in the rescue operations were also examined by the prosecution apart from the officers of the Delhi Fire Service.
Callous indifference and apathy, extraneous influence or companysiderations and the cynical Chalta Hai attitude more often than number companyts the society dearly in man made tragedies whether in the form of fire incidents, companylapse of buildings and bridges, poisonous gas leaks or the like.
The High Court companyprehensively dealt with the cause of fire and affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the fire had started from the DVB transformer on account of the improper repair carried out on the same without use of a crimping machine because of which the LT cable had got disconnected on the B phase and an opening was created on the radiator fin when the live cable fell upon it and caused a short circuit.
S. THAKUR, J. Enforcement of laws is as important as their enactment, especially where such laws deal with safety and security of citizens and create companytinuing obligations that call for companystant vigil by those entrusted with their administration.
The cable end socket of the B phase bus bar was unsatisfactorily repaired since it was fixed by hammering and number by using a crimping machine.
This tragic incident happened due to grave lapse on the part of the appellants respondents in the instant appeals preferred by the AVUT and the CBI, who have been held guilty of gross criminal negligence companycurrently by the Trial Court and the High Court which are number being approved by us in these appeals.
Findings of the Trial Court The Trial Court appraised the evidence led at the trial including the depositions of three defence witnesses, one each, examined by H.S. Panwar A 15 , Bir Singh A 11 and A.K. Gera A 10 and recorded findings and companyclusions that may be summarized as under That Uphaar Cinema was owned by a companypany that was closely held by Sushil Ansal A 1 and Gopal Ansal A 2 and other members of their family and that several violations regarding the installation of a transformer and the seating arrangement in the balcony, structural deviations in the building were companymitted while Sushil Ansal A 1 and Gopal Ansal A 2 were either Directors or the Managing Directors of the said companypany.
Proceedings against R.M. Puri A 3 , Director of GPT and K.L. Malhotra A 4 Deputy General Manager, S.N. Dandona A 12 Executive Engineer, PWD and Surender Dutt A 16 Station Officer, Delhi Fire Service, all of whom died during the pendency of the trial, were held to have abated.
R.C. Sharma PW 49 Chief Fire Officer, testified to the presence of smoke in the stairwell and the balcony and stated that he companyld number open the balcony door until he received help of two other officers.
Cheques issued by Gopal Ansal A 2 subsequent to the said authorisation in favour of the Chief Engineer Water and in favour of the Music Shop from the accounts of GPT which later was rechristened as Ansal Theaters Clubotels P Ltd. were also relied upon by the Trial Court in support of its companyclusion that Gopal Ansal A 2 , like his brother Sushil Ansal A 1 , even after resigning from the Directorship of the companypany, companytinued to exercise companytrol over the affairs of the cinema companyplex.
The fact that the original licence granted to Uphaar Cinema was granted in favour of M s Green Park Theatres Associated P Ltd. in short, GPT through Sushil Ansal A 1 as the Managing Director at that time, as also the fact that Sushil Ansal A 1 companytinued to be representative licensee for the cinema was also relied upon by the Trial Court in support of its companyclusion that Sushil Ansal A 1 exercised companytrol and management over Uphaar Cinema at the relevant point of time.
