ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY versus SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 09-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] I S.C.R. 614 
A 
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER 
(Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 712-714 of 2015) 
IN 
(Criminal Appeals Nos. 600-602 of20 I 0) 
WITH 
(Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 770-773 of2015) 
IN 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 597, 598, 605 and 606.of2010) 
FEBRUARY 09, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi, KURIAN JOSEPH AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]. 
Penal Code, 1860 - >S. 304-A, 337, 338 rlw s. 36 - Criminal 
negligence - Uphaar· tragedy case - Review pet.ition - Seeking 
modification of the sentence awarded to the accused- Al (Sushi/ 
Ansal) and A2 (Gopal Ansal) - On fac{s, High Court upheld the 
conviction of A I and A 2 u/ss. 304-A, 337 and 338 read withs. 36 
however, reduced the sentence u!s. 304-A to one year rigor.ous 
imprisonment - In appeal before this Court, Thakur, J. upheld the 
sentences awarded - Howeve1; Misra, J. opined that sentence 
awarded by the High Court needs to be enhanced to the maximum 
period of two years u!s. 304-A but in lieu of additional period of 
sentence of one year, the substantial amount of fine to be imposed 
for public purposes - Considering the age of A I, sentence already 
undergone by A I treated as sufficient -Al and A2 to pay Rs. 50 
crores each in lieu of enhanced sentence of one year - On Reference 
to three judge Bench, the view of Misra, J. upheld but the fine redqced 
to Rs 30 crores each - In view of age related complications of Al, 
period already undergone sufficient in case he pays Rs. 30 crores -
On principle of parity, same benefit extended to A 2 though he did 
not have any age related complications - Review of the said 
order- Held: Per Kurian, J. (for Got:oi, J. and ltimselj): Imposition 
of expiatory fine in addition to incarceration would also serve the 
614 
ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY v. 
SUSHIL ANSAL AND ANOTHER 
penalogica/ purpose of deterrence having regard also to 
recidivism - Having regard to the wide discretion available to the 
court u/s. 304-A, and the High Court and this Court, in appeal, had 
limited the imprisonment to one year, the punishment which would 
serve deterrence and public purpose by both imprisonment and 
exemplary fine, would be an appropriate punishment - In view of 
the gravity of the offence and the illegal gains made by accused, 
fine imposed to the tune of Rs.60 crores not excessive and would be 
used for public purpose - Prayer for review of sentence of Al 
rejected - A2 s sentence of one year imprisonment maintained but 
is also sentenced to afine of Rs. 30 crores - Per Goel, J.: Order of 
the Court to be seen as a whole and cannot be split into different 
sentences - Operative part of the order shows that the Court has 
tried to balance the interest of justice and while holding that sentence 
was required to be enhanced, it was added that in lieu of additional 
period of enhanced sentence, substantial amount of fine was required 
to be imposed and the fine was to be utilized for setting up of or 
upgrading the trauma centres of the Delhi Government hospitals -
There is neither any illegality nor any impropriety warranting review 
of said order passed by this Court. 
Citations in the order of Kurian, J .. (for Gogoi, J. and himseIO 
Sushi/ Ansal v. State Through Central Bureau of 
Investigation (2014) 6 SCC 173 : ;?014 (9) SCR 571; 
Sushi/ Ansa/ v. State Through Central Bureau of 
Investigation (2015) 10 SCC 359 : 2015 (9) SCR 552; 
State Through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev 
Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450 : 2012 (12) SCR 881 -
referred to. 
Citations in the order of Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 
Guru Basavara/v. State of Karnataka 
(2012) 8 SCC 
734 : 2012 (8) SeR 189; Pritam _Chauhan v. State (Govt. 
of N(;T of Delhi) (2014) 9 Sec 637; State of Punjab v. 
Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC 182 : 2015 (3) SeR 
590; State of Punjab v.. Ba!;~ind~r Singh (2012) 2 Sec 
182 : · 2012 (1) SeR 45; State of Karnataka v. 
Sharanappa Basanagouda Ar<,;oudar (2002) 3 SCC 
738 : (2002) SCC (Cri) 704 : 2002 (2) SCR 692; Alister 
Anthony Pareira v. Siate of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 
615 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
616 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
648 : 2012 (1) SCR 14S; Rattan Singh v. State of 
Punjab (1979) 4 SCC 719 : 1980 (1) SCR 846; State 
of MP. v. Surendra Singh (201S) 1 SCC 222; Ankush 
Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 
770: 2013 (8) SCR 863; State of MP. v. Mehtab (2015) 
5 SCC 197 : 2015 (1) SCR 1116; Manish Jalan v. State 
o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.