[Uphaar Cinema Tragedy] Delhi High Court refuses to suspend sentence of Ansal Brothers in evidence tampering case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected the plea by Ansal Brothers, Gopal and Sushil Ansal, seeking suspension of their seven-year sentence for evidence tampering in connection with the 1997 Uphaar Cinema fire tragedy (Sushil Ansal vs. State of NCT of Delhi)..The order was pronounced by the single-judge Justice Subramonium Prasad in an appeal filed by the Ansal brothers against a Sessions Court order which had declined to suspend their sentence.The Court, however, allowed the plea by co-accused Anoop Singh Karayat seeking same relief..The Ansal brothers along with Karayat, had approached the High Court challenging the Sessions Court order which declined to suspend their seven-year sentence for evidence tampering in connection with the 1997 Uphaar Cinema fire tragedy case.Appearing for Ansals, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, had argued before the HC that the no judicial system considered the primary conviction as final and that there is a need to adopt a larger view as the allegation were about continuing conspiracy of tampering with evidence but there was no direct evidence.The plea was, however, strongly contested by the Association of The Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) as well as the State..The case arose from a devastating fire that took place at the Uphaar Cinema on June 13, 1997, that took 59 lives and left several people injured.A Delhi court had in November 2021 sentenced the Ansal brothers to seven years' imprisonment and a ₹2.25 crore fine each, for tampering with evidence in the Uphaar Cinema fire tragedy case.They had then moved the Sessions Court against the Magistrate's order of conviction.Though the Court refused to suspend the sentence, it fixed February 23, 2022 as the date for hearing of the appeals against Magistrate's order of conviction.In his order, Additional Sessions Judge Anil Antil had noted that there appeared to be no prima facie illegality or impropriety in the judgement or conviction order.“Thus, appreciating and analyzing the totality of facts and circumstances, the findings thereon of the learned trial court as discussed above, in my considered opinion, the submissions advanced and the grounds raised by the learned Senior counsels for the appellants/convicts does not inspire the confidence of this court,” the Judge said.Commenting on the gravity of the offence, Judge Antil said that it appeared to be the outcome of a calculated design to interfere with the course of justice.“The polluters of the judicial firmament are required to be shown no leniency to maintain the sublimity of the institution, and recourse faith in general public in the administration of justice; - any interference in the course of justice, any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and needs to be viewed seriously,” the Court had said.The Court added that a finding of guilt has already been given by the trial court and therefore, the presumption of innocence did not apply.