The Hindu : Front Page : Uphaar: CBI for maximum punishment to guilty

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Nov 23, 2007
ePaper

Front Page

Front Page

Uphaar: CBI for maximum punishment to guilty

Staff Reporter

Sentencing on Friday; Most callous criminal negligence, says prosecution

NEW DELHI: The prosecution on Thursday demanded maximum punishment to all the 12 accused, including cinema hall-owners Sushil and Gopal Ansal, who were held guilty in the Uphaar fire case by a Sessions Court here on Tuesday. The court fixed Friday for awarding the sentences.

Arguing on the quantum of punishment before Additional Sessions Judge Mamata Sehgal, prosecution counsel Y. K. Saxena said the convicts did not deserve any mercy or sympathy. They were guilty of the most callous criminal negligence. The CBI counsel further added that the convicts must have anticipated that their acts of negligence could lead to a disaster.

AVUT petition

Along with the public prosecutor, the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) also filed a written submission on point of sentence seeking maximum punishment for the guilty.

The AVUT, through their counsel Vikas Pahwa, said that award of maximum punishment would not only act as a deterrent for future but also satisfy society that justice has been done. Citing Supreme Court rulings, it was submitted that while the number of victims could not be sole criteria for deciding the gravity of the offence, it could also not be completely overlooked. And, given the fact that 59 lives were lost and more than 100 were injured, the sheer magnitude of the incident was a major factor that should be looked at while awarding the sentence.

Earlier, Gopal Ansal’s counsel Prem Kumar sought leniency for his client, saying his client had “no direct role” in the incident. He also told the court that his client, who was into real estate, was a contributor to the economic development of the country.

Counsel also argued that he was giving direct employment to 1,000 people and another 10,000 were dependent on him as they were associated with his various business ventures and, if something happened to them, the dependent families would be affected.

On Wednesday, Sushil had also argued on similar lines. Both of them were found guilty under Section 304-A (causing death due to negligence) of the Indian Penal Code and endangering personal safety.

“Not intentional”

Seven of the 12 accused, who had been found guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, had sought leniency on the grounds that their conduct had been good all this while and that they did not have the intention to cause the deaths. They had asked the court to let them off with fine and that they be put on probation.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page