Lapses in work - poor quality

Supreme Court of India
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Author: .....J.
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
Sushil Ansal Appellant
 Versus
State Through CBI Respondent
(With Crl. Appeals No.598/2010, 599/2010, 600-602/2010, 604/2010, 605-
616/2010 and 617-627/2010)
173. It brings us to Criminal Appeals No.617-627 of 2010 and 604 of 2010 filed by B.M. Satija (A-9)
and Bir Singh (A-11) respectively. They were together with A.K. Gera (A-10) charged with
commission of offences punishable under Sections 304 read with Section 36 of the IPC. The trial
Court, as already noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, held all the three accused persons
mentioned above guilty of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years besides a fine of Rs.5000/- and six months
imprisonment in default. In criminal appeals filed by the three accused persons, the High Court has
converted the conviction from Section 304 Part II to Sections 304A, 337 and 338 read with Section
36 of the IPC in so far as B.M. Satija (A-9) and Bir Singh (A-11) are concerned, while acquitting A.K.
Gera (A-10) of the charge. The High Court has further reduced the sentence awarded to the
appellants B.M. Satija (A-9) and Bir Singh (A-11) from seven years rigorous imprisonment to two
years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence under Section 304-A, rigorous imprisonment for
six months with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337, IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for one year, with fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 338, IPC. While appellants B.M.
Satija (A-9) and Bir Singh (A-11) have assailed their conviction and sentence before us, the CBI has
challenged the acquittal of A.K. Gera (A-10) in Criminal Appeals No.605-616 of 2010.
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 73
174. Appearing for appellant-B.M. Satija, Mr. V.V. Giri, learned senior counsel argued that the
appellant was not one of those deputed to attend to the complaint about the malfunctioning of the
DVB transformer on the morning of 13th June, 1997. He submitted that evidence adduced by the
prosecution regarding his presence and association with the process of rectification was sketchy and
did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt his presence on the spot. He made an attempt to persuade
us to reverse the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below in this regard and drew
our attention to the depositions of P.C. Bhardwaj (PW-40), V.K Gupta (PW-43) and Bhagwandeen
(PW-44) as also the documents marked Ex. PW-40/C, 40/A and 40/P. He urged that the CFSL
report recording the signatures sent for examination did not lend any support to the prosecution
case.
175. Mr. Gopal Singh, Senior Counsel appearing for A.K. Gera (A-9) respondent in CBIs Criminal
Appeal No.605-616 of 2010 contended that the order passed by the High Court was based on
appreciation of the evidence adduced by the trial Court and that interference with any such order of
acquittal is rare unless it is found to be patently perverse. He urged that his client A.K. Gera (A-9)
was not posted in the concerned zone in which the DVB transformer was installed. He had nothing
to do with this act. The trial Court and the High Court have both concurrently held that the repairs
of the DVB transformer were carried out by Bir Singh (A-11) and B.M. Satija A(-9). That finding is
without any perversity. The High Court has relying upon the depositions of P.C. Bhardwaj (PW-40)
and Bhagwandeen (PW-44) observed:
14.12 So far as role of the accused B.M. Satija and Bir Singh are concerned, PW-40
P.C. Bhardwaj deposed having informed B.M. Satija about the morning complaint.
PW-44 deposed that all 3, i.e., Gera, Satija and Bir Singh were instrumental in
repairing of the DVB transformer at Uphaar in the morning of 13.6.1997. Expert
evidence in the form of PW-35/A; Ex.PW36/A all established that the cause of fire
was improper crimping of the cable end with the socket which ultimately detached at
the crucial time, resulted in intense sparking, settling down of the cable on the
transformer which resulted in a slit; transformer oil gushed out, caught fire and
spread to the parking area resulting in the improperly parked vehicles catching fire.
14.13 xxxxx 14.14 The depositions of other witnesses assume importance. PW- 40
clearly mentioned that he had discussed the complaint with Satija and chalked out
the programme. PW/44 clearly deposed having accompanied Satija, Bir Singh and
Gera to the relevant site at Uphar and witnessing the repairs with the aid of dye and
hammer. At one place, he mentioned that Bir Singh carried out the repair under the
supervision of both the officers, in another place of his deposition, he mentioned that
Bir Singhs work was supervised by Satija.
176. The above findings do not in our view suffer from any perversity or any miscarriage of justice or
call for interference under appeal in this connection under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Even in regard to A.K. Gera (A-9), the High Court has held that he was present on the spot but in the
absence of any further evidence to prove the role played by him, the High Court considered it unsafe
to convict him for imprisonment:
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 74
On an overall conspectus of the above facts, this Court is of opinion that though
Geras presence at site stands established, in the absence of fuller evidence about the
role played by him, there can be no presumption that he played any part in the
defective repairs, carried out without the aid of the crimping machine on the Uphaar
DVB transformer. Mere presence when that cannot lead to presumption of
involvement of an actor who is not expected to play any role and is insufficient, in the
opinion of the Court, to saddle criminal liability of the kind envisioned under Section
304-A. To establish that Gera had a duty to care to ensure that notwithstanding the
defective crimping carried out by the employees competent to do so and that he had
an overriding responsibility of objecting to the work done by them, without proving
whether he was there during the entire operation and if so how the extent of his
involvement, the conviction for causing death due to criminal negligence cannot be
arrived at. Although, there are circumstances which point to Geras presence, they
may even amount to suspicion of the role played by him, yet such evidence proved are
insufficient to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. In the
circumstances, neither can be he convicted under Section 304 Part-II, nor under
Section 304-A read with 337/338 and 36 IPC.

177. In fairness to Mr. Salve, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, we must mention that he did
not seriously assail the above reasoning given by the High Court. At any rate, the view taken by the
High Court is a possible view. We see no compelling reason to interfere with that view in the facts
and circumstances of the case. Having said that, the question remains whether the High Court was
justified in convicting appellants Bir Singh (A-11) and B.M. Satija (A-9) for the offence of causing
death by rashness and gross negligence, punishable under sections 304A of the IPC.
178. In our view, the causa causans for the death of 59 persons was their inability to quickly exit
from the balcony area for reasons we have already indicated. That being so, even when the repairs
carried out by Bir Singh (A11) and B.M. Satija (A-9) may have been found to be unsatisfactory for the reasons given by the trial
Court and the High Court, which we have affirmed, the fire resulting from such poor repair was no
more than causa sine qua non for the deaths and, therefore, did not constitute an offence punishable
under Section 304A of the IPC. Besides, the negligence of the occupiers of the cinema having
intervened between the negligence of these two officials of the DVB and the deaths that occurred in
the incident, the causal connection between the deaths and act of shabby repair of the installation of
the DVB transformer is not established directly.
179. The conviction of these two appellants under Section 304A cannot, therefore, be sustained.
That would, however, not affect their conviction under Sections 337 and 338 read with Section 36 of
the IPC which would remain unaffected and is hereby affirmed.