SUSHIL ANSAL versus STATE THROUGH CBI

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 05-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 9 S.C.R. 571 
SUSHIL ANSAL 
v. 
STATE THROUGH CBI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2010) 
MARCH 5, ·2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
Art. 136 - Scope of - The extra ordinary jurisdiction and c 
power vested in Supreme Court is not exercised to upset 
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below 
on a proper appreciation of evidence but only in those rare 
and exceptional cases where the appreciation of evidence is 
found to be wholly unsatisfactory causing miscarriage of justice 0 
- Similarly, scope of interference by Supreme Court with 
quantum of punishment awarded by High Court is limited to 
cases where the sentence awarded is manifestly inadequate 
and punishment reduced is tantamount to failure of justice -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 21. 
E 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 304-A, 337 and 338 r/w s. 36 and s. 14 of 
Cinematograph Act, 1952 -
Gross negligence - Uphar 
Cinema tragedy in Delhi - Conviction - Sentence of 2 years F 
RI, reduced by High Court to 1 year - Conviction upheld 
except of Inspector and Fitter of DVB, whose conviction u/s 
304A altered to ss.337 and 338 - There being difference of 
opinion as to quantum of sentence, matter referred to larger 
Bench - Cinematograph Act, 1952 - s. 14. 
G 
Criminal Law: 
'Rash' or 'negligent' - Meaning of - Explained. 
571 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 
'Negligence' in regard to use of buildings, particularly, 
cinema hall - Liability of occupier(s) - Degree and nature of 
care expected of an occupier of a cinema bui81ding -
Explained 
Cinematograph 
Act, 
1952; 
Delhi 
Cinematograph Rules, 1953) and Delhi Cinematograph 
Rules, 1981 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - s.6. 
Doctrine of causa causans - Explained - In the instant 
case, causa causans was not the fire, but the breaches 
committed by the occupiers of cinema and other accused 
persons, which prevented or at least delayed rapid dispersal 
of cinema viewers, and resulted in the tragedy. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.464 - Error, omission or irregularity in framing of 
charge - Shall not invalidate any sentence or order passed 
by a court of competent jurisdiction unless in the opinion of 
a court of appeal, confirmation or revision a failure of justice 
has in fact been occasioned thereby. 
Administrative Law: 
Safety and security of citizens - Enforcement of relevant 
laws - Duty of persons/authorities entrusted with enforcement 
of such laws - Emphasised. 
Administration of criminal justice: 
Flawed investigations and long winding criminal trial -
Brings the case to an uncertain end - Investigation. 
The instant appeals were filed by the convicts 
G 
challenging their conviction and sentence, by the State 
challenging the acquittal of four accused and by the 
Association of Victims of Uphar Cinema challenging the 
acquittal and seeking a retrial of accused persons for 
offences punishable u/s 304 (part II) IPC. 
H 
SUSHIL ANSAL v. STATE THROUGH CBI 
573 
Disposing of some of the appeals, and referring the 
A 
matter to a 3 Judge Bench in regard to quantum of 
sentence in other appeals, the Court 
HELD: 
Per Thakur, J: 
(i) Scope of a criminal appeal by special leave: 
1.1. The jurisdiction to interfere under Art. 136 of the 
Constitution of India is extraordinary and the power 
vested in the Supreme Court is not exercised to upset 
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts 
below on a proper appreciation of evidence. It is only in 
those rare and exceptional cases where the 
appreciation of evidence is found to be wholly 
unsatisfactory or the conclusion drawn from the same 
perverse in nature, causing miscarriage of justice that 
this Court may correct the course of justice and undo 
the wrong. [para 46] [639-B-D] 
Mst. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab 1977 (1) SCR 280 = 
(1976) 4 SCC 158; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Sahib and 
Ors. v. State of U.P. 2006 (1) SCR 519 = (2006) 2 SCC 450; 
Raj Narain Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. 2009 
(14) SCR 755 = (2009) 10 SCC 362, Surendra Pal and Ors. 
v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2010 (11) SCR 968 = (2010) 9 SCC 
399 Amitava Banerjee v. State of West Bengal (2011) 12 
SCC 554 and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2011 
(1 O) SCR 56 = (2011) 13 sec 621 - relied on. 
(ii) 'Rash' or 'negligent' - meaning of: 
1.2. Section 304A IPC makes any act causing death 
by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable 
homicide, punishable with imprisonment w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.