Uphaar fire tragedy: Ansals get 7-year jail for evidence tampering

The case is related to tampering with the evidence in the main fire tragedy case in which the Ansals were convicted and sentenced to 2-year jail term by the Supreme Court

Gopal Ansal (left) and Sushil Ansal, owners of Uphaar cinema hall.

A Delhi court on Monday sentenced real estate barons Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal and others to seven years’ imprisonment for tampering with evidence in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire case.

Fifty-nine people were killed and 100 injured when fire broke out during the screening of Hindi movie Border, and the Supreme Court had earlier convicted and sentenced both the brothers.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pankaj Sharma, in his 15-page order, said they deserved punishment. The court also imposed a fine of ₹2.25 crore each on both of them.

On October 8, the Ansal brothers were convicted by a Delhi court under Sections 201 (tampering of evidence), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused, including a former court staff, who were sentenced are Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Prem Prakash Batra and Anoop Singh. They were slapped a fine of ₹3 lakh each.

“The enormity of the offence and the manner of its execution by the custodian of the judicial record in conspiracy with other convicts call for appropriate sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of offence and capable of having deterrent effect on the potential offenders,” the court said.

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate said the accused were conveniently taking advantage of the missing documents during the trial of the main Uphaar case “as they challenged the motion of secondary evidence by the prosecution and in their statement under Section 313 Cr.PC refused to admit those documents on the premise that they were marked documents”.

“These facts taken in totality show that how important was these documents which were effaced from the record to secure their acquittal and put a stumbling block in the trial by preventing the court in rendering judgment,” the order said.

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate said the “brazen attitude” of the accused was reflective from their conduct as after the destruction of evidence they vehemently opposed the prosecution plea for adducing secondary evidence. “They left no stone unturned to prevent advent of secondary evidence.”