BIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall deal with three applications for suspension of sentence one of Bir Singh another of Brij Mohan Satija and yet another of Anand kumar Gera. They were held guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 304 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years vide order on sentence dated 23. 11. 2007. This is a case which relates to the tragedy which occurred in Uphar Cinema as fire had taken place on 13. 6. 1997 as a result of which 59 persons who had come to watch the movie lost their lives in that fire.

(2.) THOUGH learned counsel appearing for these appellants addressed their arguments in detail touching the merits of the appeal but this court is in the midst of hearing the appeals of some of the appellants, therefore, this court would not like to read the testimonies of the witnesses threadbare as it might affect the merits of the appeal when their appeals are heard by this court. However, there is no denial of the fact that the appellant Bir Singh working as fitter in DVB and Brij Mohan Satija working as Inspector in DVB had repaired the transformer in the morning when complaint was received about the spark in the transformer. Though according to the prosecution, Anand Kumar Gera also accompanied them but this is denied by the counsel for the accused Anand kumar Gera, as according to learned counsel for this appellant, he was not in-charge of Zone 1601 but was in-charge of 1603 and this area did not fall under his jurisdiction, therefore, he had not attended to this complaint whereas learned Additional Solicitor General of India while meeting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant urged that Ex. PW-40/c which relates to attending the call of this fire was prepared and also signed by this appellant, therefore, according to him, it would not lie in the mouth of this appellant to say now that he had not attended to the repairs of this transformer. This document is signed by Bir Singh, A. K. Gera and Brij Mohan Satija.

(3.) PRIMA facie it appears that these three appellants had undertaken the job of repair of the transformer earlier in the day when there was a spark in the transformer. It has also come in evidence that repair was done with the help of hammer and dies whereas it ought to have been done with crimping machine with which, the repairs is done effectively leaving nothing to chance whereas crimping machine was not used as it was either not available or not used because of callousness. These are the three appellants who prima facie appear to be directly responsible for carrying out the repairs in the morning of 13. 06. 1997 and had also certified that as per the complaint received on 13. 06. 1997 morning, that necessary work was carried out on 1000 KV transformer and the local transformer was put on at about 11. 30 A. M. yet fire erupted when matinee show was on, taking the toll of 59 precious lives.