Uphaar Fire Tragedy: Delhi Court Upholds Ansal Brothers' Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case
A Delhi Court on Monday dismissed the appeals of real estate barons Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal challenging their conviction in the evidence tampering case in connection with the Uphaar fire tragedy that happened in the year 1997.District Judge Dharmesh Sharma of the Patiala House Courts pronounced the order after reserving it earlier this month.The Court has also dismissed the appeals filed...
A Delhi Court on Monday dismissed the appeals of real estate barons Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal challenging their conviction in the evidence tampering case in connection with the Uphaar fire tragedy that happened in the year 1997.
District Judge Dharmesh Sharma of the Patiala House Courts pronounced the order after reserving it earlier this month.
The Court has also dismissed the appeals filed by former court staff Dinesh Chand Sharma and P P Batra. However, the appeal of Anoop Singh has been allowed.
The Court will tomorrow hear fresh arguments on sentence.
CMM Pankaj Sharma had convicted Ansals and others under Sections 201 (tampering of evidence), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code.
On 13 June 1997, 59 lives were lost and 103 people were injured in the fire of Uphaar Cinema, where audience was watching that year's biggest Bollywood blockbuster, Border, during an afternoon screening.
Delhi's posh Uphaar Cinema, was/ is owned by real estate giants and brothers - Sushil and Gopal Ansal. After 95 hearings, the Ansals were finally convicted, to seven years in prison on 8 November 2021, in evidence tampering case, the Court also imposes a fine of Rs 2.5 crore on each of the Ansals.
The court also gave 7-year-jail terms to former court staff Dinesh Chand Sharma and two others - PP Batra and Anoop Singh and imposed a fine of ₹3 lakh on each of them.
Earlier, the High Court had dismissed the duo's plea for suspension of sentence, stating that the same would amount to eroding the faith of the public in the judicial system as it would entail allowing convicts to take advantage of the passage of time as well as the judiciary as an institution.