Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 Date of Decision: July 27, 2010 Kewal Krishan and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana (CBI) .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.RK Chugh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.JS Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for CBI. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present petition has been filed against order dated 13.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 22/28.3.2001 passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -2- pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, was dismissed and judgment/order of the trial Court was affirmed. 2. In brief, the facts of the case as projected in para 2 of the trial Court judgment are that: “On 23.12.95, the management of the D.A.V.Public School, Dabwali organised Annual function of the school in Rajiv Marriage Palace Mandi Dabwali which they hired for a sum of Rs.6,000/-. There was huge gathering of around 1000 invitees including children and parents. Shri M.P.Bidlan, D.C.Sirsa was the Chief Guest. The function started at 12.00 noon. While the function was going on at about 1.45/1.50 p.m. a fire was noticed at the entrance/exit gate. The fire spread so fast that it engulfed the whole pandal within no time. Consequently, more than 44 persons whose names were mentioned in the list attached with charge sheet including Shri Som Nath Kamboj, SDM, Dabwali and Smt.Preeti Kumar, Principal of D.A.V.Public School, Dabwali died and 145 persons whose names were mentioned in the list attached with the charge sheet including Shri Anil Yadav, DSP, Dabwali sustained burn injuries. Keeping in view the gravity of situation including heavy toll of lives, post mortem examination of the dead bodies of 405 persons was waived by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa and the dead bodies were handed over to their relatives/friends after completing Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -3- necessary legal formalities for the last rites. However, post mortem was conducted in respect of those persons who died subsequently while undergoing treatment of burn injuries in various hospitals.” A Case vide Crime No.397/95 dated 28-12-95 was registered at City P.S. Dabwali under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against unknown persons on the complaint of S.H.O. City P.S. Dabwali. Later, the investigation of this case was transferred to the C.B.I. vide Notification No.228/81/95-AVD-II, dated 1-1-96 of DP&T, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Govt. of India issued with the consent of Government of Haryana. Consequently, case RC-1(S)/96-STU.II corresponding to Crime No.397/95 was registered on 2-1-96 under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in STU-II of CBI STC-I New Delhi. (iii) Investigations disclosed that (a) registered partnership firm having three real brothers Kewal Krishan Dhameeja, Om Parkash Dhameeja and Chandra Bhan Dhameeja as partners constructed Rajiv Marriage Palace on land purchased vide sale deeds dated 7-7-94 and 18-7-94 from Shri Faqir Chand for a total sum of Rs.2.50 lacs (b) The building plan of Rajiv Marriage Palace, Dabwali was approved by the Municipal Committee, Dabwali on 31-7-95 in which the height of open hall was shown as 13' whereas the owner/partners constructed a covered hall having its height 23 feet and the existing construction of the hall/pandal was in utter disregard Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -4- of the approved plan which has caused stampede amongst invitees of the pandal at the time of incident on 21-12-95. (c) The pandal constructed in Rajiv Marriage Palace covered an area of 100 ft. x 90 ft. in regular shape with steel super structure of G.I. Sheets on the top and partially covered on the three sides and had false ceiling supported with bamboo structure. The lowest false ceiling wall inside pandal was at the height of 12 feet from ground. The ceiling of the pandal was dom shaped. The entire ceiling wall made of cotton cloth in colourful designs and in Chunri form. All the three side of the Pandal were covered with thick cotton curtains tightly fitted with the bamboo support from ground level to the height of first ceiling. The upper portion from all the three sides of the Pandal was covered with P.V. sheets from inside upto the height of 12 feet from ground level. Thick cotton curtains and on both sides of the gate were also fixed right from the ground level upto the height of 12 feet leaving a vacant space of 12' x 12' as entrance/exit gate. Both inner and upper curtains in the front portion were tightly tied with bamboos placed in between the angle frames and steel poles. The curtains of D-china cloth were fixed in hanging order at both sides of the entrance/exit gate of the Pandal. (d) The sitting arrangement inside the Pandal included as many as 725 chairs made of wholly plastic/plastic strips on both sides of the central passage. The first three rows from stage had blocked the central passage. In the front row there Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -5- were sofa sets with extra chairs on both sides for VIPs and special guests. There was narrow passage in the southern, eastern and western side of the pandal. The placement of chairs was in the east of the pandal from the entrance passage in the diagonal shape because of provision of a counter for serving tea and cold drinks to the invitees. (e) The pandal was provided with 12 electrical circuits through the switch board installed in the switch room towards eastern side of the pandal. There were 25 Jhumar lights with electric bulbs of 100 watts each hanging from the false ceiling of the Pandal. The halogen lights over the stage and two halogen lights were fixed near the entry/exit gate of the pandal. The lighting arrangement inside the pandal also included an arc light in crude from fitted with two carbon electrodes and a reflector fitted above the first ceiling near the central portion of the entrance gate facing the dias. A number of temporary/loose connections were also provided in the Pandal by tempering with the electrical fittings on the date of function. Two generator sets were arranged to ensure uninterrupted power supply on 23-12-95 in the Pandal. The switch board fitted in the switch room of the premises were provided with the arrangement of power supply from H.S.E.B. as well as from the generators. Accused Rajendra and Devi Lal of M/s. Chacha Bhatija Light Service, Dabwali were deployed for managing the electrical arrangements, operating generators etc. on 23-12-95. Accused Kewal Krishan Dhameeja and Chandra Bhan Dhameeja Partners of M/s. Rajiv Marriage Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -6- Palace were personally supervising the arrangements which included electrical fitting etc. Accused Rajendra Kumar and Devi Lal who made electrical fittings had no training. Accused Rajendra Kumar and Devi Lal provided number of temporary connections in the Pandal by tempering with electric fittings. They provided temporary electrical connections for Arc light and for Halwai's even. These connections were made by Rajendra Kumar and Devi Lal who were untrained and unqualified persons in a haste and hurry in total disregard to the safety of the human lives. Accused Kewal Krishan Dhameeja and Chander Bhan Dhameeja took the electrical connections in the Pandal in an illegal and unauthorised manner and were liable. (f) During investigation, a team of forensic experts from F.S.L. Madhuban, Haryana visited the place of occurrence on 25-12-95 and after investigation submitted report on 25-12- 95 that “In the middle portion leading to stage a focus light connected by copper wire was connected temporarily by the two terminals of a welding machine. The welding machine in turn was connected to the mains through switch charge over box. In one of the terminals of welding machine, the copper wires were found melted, leading to the bead formation. This clearly indicates that there was high voltage due to which there could have been heavy sparking at the loose terminals. Because of this even the two fuse grips through which the focus light has been connected also had blockening resulting in the Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -7- burning of copper wire. In the focus light, two carbon electrodes are placed at a distance to produce spark which is transmitted on to reflector to give bright light. This process tremendous amount of heat which had burnt the bamboo poles as well as decorative cloth which was synthetic. The synthetic cloth caught fire instantaneously and fell down as fused mass with flames. The remaining plastic sheets and synthetic cloth caught fire and engulfed the entire area leading to death of several people. Shri V.B.Gupta, Superintending Engineer, North Regional Electricity Board, New Delhi inspected the place of occurrence and submitted a report dated 27-2-96 that “Based on the results of experiments conducted at site and discussions the most probable cause of fire appears to be the flash/spark created at the T-Joint above the main entrance to the Pandal where a large number of loose electrical connections were made by the electrical operators for fitting the lighting equipments. The T-Joint was very close almost touching the curtains spread horizontally at 2' height above the main entrance. The spark from this T-Joint could have caused the fire in the curtain clothes. Once the cloth caught fire, the fire spread all around within few minutes bringing the whole of the pandal into burning simultaneously.” The C.F.S.L. experts from Ballistics, Physics and chemistry, New Delhi inspected the place of occurrence and submitted report dated 15-3-96 and ruled out the possibility of any sabotage in the fire incident on 23-12-95 as no explosive substance was detected in the Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -8- residue and the cause of fire was opined to be due to short- circuiting. Investigations disclosed that accused Kewal Krishan Dhammeja, Chanderbhan Dhammeja, Rajendra Kumar and Devi Lal committed offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on which the CBI filed charge sheet against accused Kewal Krishan Dhammeja Chanderbhan Dhameeja, Rajendra Kumar and Devi Lal. 3. Accused-petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused- petitioners, the CBI has examined as many as 31 witnesses, viz., Satish Kumar as PW1; Satpal as PW2; Mohammed Muzibur Rehman as PW3; Bhagwan Dass as PW4; Rajinder Kumar as PW5; Ramesh Chander as PW6; VB Gupta as PW7; Ravi Mohan as PW8; Kaur Singh Brar as PW9; FC Arora as PW10; Kuldip Rehal as PW11; Mahabir Singh as PW12; NB Bardhan as PW13; RK Kaushal as PW14; Balwant Singh as PW15; Anil Kumar Yadav as PW16; NK Prasad as PW17; CK Jain as PW18; Prem Chand as PW19; Dr.MR Bishnoi as PW20; Dr.Rajinder Singh as PW21; Rajesh as PW22, Dr.Abraham Thomas as PW23; Dr.KK Garg as PW24, NC Jha as PW25; RS Rana as PW26; Dr.CB Arora as PW27; Ganesh Datt as PW28; Dr.RR Wadhwa as PW29; Dr.Subhash Juneja as PW30 and Dr.CS Randhawa as PW31. 5. Statements of the accused-petitioners were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which accused- Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -9- petitioners Rajendra Kumar and Devi Lal pleaded incorrectness of incriminatory evidence for want of knowledge and denied commission of alleged offences and also pleaded their false implication. Accused- petitioner Kewal Krishan, however, gave detail of the occurrence and pleaded his false implication. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as noticed in para No.1 of this judgment. 7. Hence this revision petition. 8. The present revision was admitted on 10.1.2003 and accused- petitioners were ordered to be released on bail. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the State-CBI has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioners since the offence has been proved. 11. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 2.1.1996. Thus, the petitioners, by now, have suffered protracted trial for 14 years. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as “R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another” observed as under:- “26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -10- circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment” 13. In another case titled as “Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana”, 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. 2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be Criminal Revision No.1398 of 2002 -11- released forthwith. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly”. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the reduction of sentence/imprisonment to the extent already undergone by the petitioners would meet the ends of justice. 15. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioners, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him. The sentence of fine awarded to the petitioners is, however, enhanced to Rs.50,000/- each besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court. They shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. In case, the petitioners fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, within the period stipulated above, in that eventuality, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 17. This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) July 27, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No