Madras High Court
Dharmaraj vs State on 18 May, 2020
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 28.08.2019
Pronounced on : 18.05.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012
Dharmaraj ... Appellant / Accused No.1
in Crl A(MD)No.126 of 2012
Ramasamy
Sadagopan
Murugesan ... Appellants / Accused Nos.4 to 6
in Crl A(MD)No.132 of 2012
Vs.
State, rep.by the Inspector of Police,
Srirangam Police Station,
Trichy District.
(Crime No.21 of 2004) ... Respondent / Complainant
in both the appeals.
Prayer : These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374 of Cr.PC, to
set aside the order passed in S.C No.43 of 2008 dated 13.06.2012 on the
file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy.
in both cases :
For Appellants : Shri.Veera.Kathiravan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Jegannathan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012
For Respondent : Shri.A.Robinson,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 13.06.2012 made in S.C No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirapalli. There were originally six accused in this case. The third accused Selvam @ Periyasamy died even before the commencement of the trial. The charges framed against the accused are as under :
Charges A1 U/s.304 A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts A2 U/s.304 A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts and u/s.108 (Expl.1) r/w.109 IPC A3 Died A4 & U/s.304 A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts A5 and u/s.108 (Expl.1) r/w.109 IPC U/s.45 r/w.139 of Indian Electricity Act U/s.271 r/w.441 (1) (4) Sch.V. of Corporation Act A6 U/s.304 A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts and u/s.108 (Expl.1) r/w.109 IPC U/s 45 r/w.139 of Indian Electricity Act
2.The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.49 and http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 marked Exs.P1 to P258 and MO.1 to MO.15. On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. The learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged. All the accused were tried for the offences under Section 304 A IPC on 64 counts and Section 338 of IPC on 33 counts. The first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.100/- for each of the charges. A2 was however sentenced to pay only fine. A4 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for each count for the offence under Section 304 A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each count for the offence under Section 333 of IPC. He was given lesser sentence for the other charges. The fifth accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each count of the offence under section 304 A and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each count of the offence under Section 338 of IPC. He was also given lesser sentence for the other charges. A6 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each count of the offence under Section 304 A of IPC as well as for each count of the offence under Section 338 of IPC and given lesser sentence for the other charges. The second accused did not file any appeal. A1, A4 and A5 and A6 have filed these appeals. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012
3.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Counsel (crl.side) appearing for the State. Background facts :
4.The marriage of Gururajan with Jayasri was to be solemnized on 23.01.2004 between 09.00 A.M to 10.00 A.M at Padmapriya Marriage Hall, Srirangam, Trichy District. Shortly before the auspicious moment, the decoration papers hanging from the temporary roof caught fire and in a few seconds, the entire gathering was engulfed in a ball of fire. The assembled guests tried to escape. In the ensuing stampede, as many as 64 persons died and 33 persons suffered injuries. Gururajan, the bridegroom perished in the fire. One Rajagopalan who is a close relative of Gururajan lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station. It was registered as Crime No.21 of 2004 under Section 174 of Cr.PC. Investigation was taken up and final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Trichirappalli. The case was committed to the Sessions Court in PRC No.1 of 2008. The learned Sessions Judge framed as many as seven charges as mentioned above.
5.The first accused Dharmaraj was the videographer. The second accused Balaji was his assistant. The third accused Selvam @ http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 Periyasamy had erected the temporary roof in the first floor where the occurrence has taken place. The fourth accused Ramasamy was the owner of the marriage hall. The fifth accused Sadagopan was the Manager of the marriage hall. The sixth accused Murugesan was the electrician who had provided the temporary electricity connection by extending the cables and cords to the first floor.
6.The charge against the first accused was that he had been negligent and reckless while operating the video camera and that is how the decoration papers that were hanging from the low thatched roof caught fire. The charge against the second accused was that he had drawn the electricity supply from the temporary connection and committed the offences. The charge against the fourth accused and fifth accused were that they were running the hall in question without getting permission from the Trichy Corporation and had committed the offences under Sections U/s.271 r/w.441 (1) (4) Sch.V. of Trichy Municipal Corporation Act and U/s.304 A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts and u/s.108 (Expl.1) r/w.109 IPC and U/s.45 r/w.139 of Indian Electricity Act. The further charge was that the fourth and fifth accused by permitting erection of temporary pandal had committed the offences U/s. 271 r/w.441 (1) (4) Sch.V. of Trichy Municipal Corporation Act. The http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 charge against the sixth accused was that he was an unlicensed electrician and had given electric connection and thus had committed the offences under Sections U/s.304 A IPC (64 counts), 338 IPC (33) counts and u/s.108 (Expl.1) r/w.109 IPC and Section 45 r/w.139 of the Indian Electricity Act. The accused as already mentioned denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
7.PW.1 Rajagopalan was a close friend of Gururajan and he lodged Ex.P1 complaint. He deposed that since a number of guests were anticipated, it was decided to perform the marriage in the terrace portion and that therefore, a temporary thatched roofing was erected through A3 Selvam. The thatched roofing was not of sufficient height. The pandal was also decorated and colour papers were also hanging from the ceiling. A6 Murugesan had made the necessary electrical arrangements by drawing temporary connection from the ground floor. The function was being videographed by A1 Dharmaraj. He was assisted by A2 Balaji. Balaji was holding the focus lamp. In order to capture the images better, the videographer and his assistant stood on the chairs. A2 who was holding the focus lamp raised it higher. When he did so, it came in contact with the decoration papers and due to the heat emanating from the focus lamp, the pandal caught fire. Soon, the entire pandal was on http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 fire and it fell on the ground. Two staircases were leading to the ground floor from the terrace. One was very narrow. The other had a curved bend. Therefore, all the assembled guests could not make good their escape. In the ensuing smoke and stampede 64 persons died and 33 persons suffered injuries. PW.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint before the Srirangam Police Station. He clearly stated that A1 was the main videographer. A2 was his assistant. A4 Ramasamy was the marriage hall owner. Sadagopan was the manager of the marriage hall and Murugesan had arranged temporary electricity connection. He was however declared hostile. This was because in the complaint, he had stated that the accident took place due to short-circuiting of electricity connection. I fail to understand as to why he was declared hostile. His evidence is fully supportive of the prosecution charge.
8.A1 and A2 were represented by one counsel while A4 to A6 were represented by another counsel and they cross examined the witnesses independently. Though it was elicited in the cross examination that PW1 did not inform the police during investigation that the temporary electricity connection was taken via staircase, it was not denied that A6 Murugesan was the electrician who had provided the temporary electric connection. One suggestion that was put to PW.1 was that the marriage http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 functions would usually be conducted only in the ground floor and that the management did not grant permission for holding the event in the terrace.
9.PW.2 is the brother of the deceased Gururajan. He stated that only after getting permission from the manager of the wedding hall, pandal was put up. Selvam erected the pandal and also made the decorations. Thereafter, Murugesan made the electrical arrangements. The learned counsel for A4, A5 and A6 elicited from PW.2 that he had not met the owner of the marriage hall and that he had met only the manager the previous day. He also admitted that he did not tell the police during investigation that the electrical arrangements were not properly done. He admitted having told the police that only due to electrical short-circuiting, the accident took place. He also admitted that they had installed pedestal fans and that their running made the fire spread faster. PW.3 Venkatraman was the brother in law of the bride and he also alleged that the electric connection was not properly provided. He admitted during the cross examination that the electrical arrangements were made only for taking videography and that the pedestal fans were installed one hour prior to the occurrence. PW.4 Nagarajan was another brother in law of the bride. He was however present in the ground floor when the http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 occurrence had taken place. PW.5 Jayashree was the bride. She was very much present when the occurrence had taken place. She clearly and categorically stated that the occurrence had taken place on account of the enormous heat from the focus light. Of course, her testimony was challenged by the counsel for the accused. PW.6 was a relative of the deceased Gururajan and he broadly supported the case of the prosecution. PW.7 Renganathan was not present at the scene of occurrence. PW.8 was a resident of the locality. PW.9 was an injured witness. PW.10 Kala is the sister of the bride. She also corroborated the testimony of the other witnesses. PW.11 Parimala is a relative of deceased Gurunathan and she is also an injured witness. PW.12 Vijaya. PW.13 Dasaradan. PW.14 and PW.15 are injured witnesses. PW.16 is the brother of the deceased Gurunathan. He deposed that the other rites took place in the ground floor and after they were over at around 08.40 A.M, Kashi Yatra the ceremonial walk by the bridegroom was performed. Thereafter, all of them went to the terrace portion. After the Kashi Yatra was over, they were to recite 10 kinds of mantras. By then the number of guests had really swelled. The videographer stood on a chair to take better pictures. At that time, his assistant A2 Balaji held up the focus light. It came in contact with the tesso decoration papers. According to PW.16, they were under the impression that it was due to http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 some electrical problem. But soon, the entire pandal caught fire. PW.16 tried to rescue their grandfather who was very old. PW.16 also suffered injuries.
10.The learned counsel for A1 and A2 while cross examining these witnesses suggested that the occurrence took place on account of the flames that went up from the ceremonial fire. They also suggested that the videographer was not responsible. PW.17 Rengachari hails from the locality. He is not a material witness. PW.18 Srinivasan was known to the family and he is also an injured witness. PW.19 Govindan is another injured witness. He also deposed that when the videographer got on to the chair and the focus light was being held up, the occurrence had taken place. PW.20 Ramakrishnan is not a material witness. PW. 21 Venkatesh also put the blame on the videographer. PW.22 Rajnarayanan lost his wife in the occurrence and he also deposed that due to the flash light, the pandal caught fire. PW.23 Seetha was present in the occurrence and her girl child suffered serious injuries. PW.24 Ravikumar lost his wife in the occurrence. PW.25 Sridhar turned hostile. PW.26 Venkatraman is a relative of Gururajan and he deposed that sparks from the plug point caused the accident. PW.27 Anandha Padmanaban is not a material witness. PW.28 Mohanarengan is also not http://www.judis.nic.in 11 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 a material witness. PW.29 Sairam was present in the ground floor when the occurrence took place. PW.30 Gururajan deposed that the occurrence had taken place on account of the short circuiting at the plug point. PW.31 Selvam, PW.32, PW.33 and PW.34 are not material witnesses. PW.35 was the photographer. He turned hostile. PW.36 Nagalakshmi lost her mother and her youngest son suffered injuries. PW. 37 N.Swaminathan lost his two daughters in the accident. PW.38 Chitra lost her mother. PW.39 Naresh lost his father. PW.40 Ravisankar lost his relatives. PW.41 lost her husband. PW.42 lost his brother. PW.43 Valluvan is not a material witness. PW.44 Kumar, Village Assistant turned hostile. PW.45 Thamu @ Damodaran is not a material witness. PW.46 Dr.Ramachandran is the plastic surgeon who treated some of the injured witnesses. PW.47 is working in ABC Hospital, Trichy and treated some of the injured persons. PW.48 turned hostile.
11.PW.49 is the investigation officer. He was working as the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police station when the occurrence took place. He deposed that PW.1 Rajagopalan came to the Police Station at 12.30 PM and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. Based on the same, FIR in Crime No.21 of 2004 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.Pc (Ex.P19). PW.49 went to the spot on the same day and prepared observation mahazar in http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 the presence of witnesses (Ex.P4). He also draw rough sketch (Ex.P20). Through the police photographer, photos were taken. At about 04.00 P.M, a wooden switch board with three switches and three plug points were seized from the occurrence spot. He also seized halogen focus light. Few casuarina sticks and few plastic chairs and several decoration papers were seized under cover of mahazar (MO.1 to MO.12) under Ex.P3. He also examined witnesses. He also arranged holding of inquest for the dead. The inquest reports Exs.P21 to P.84 were also submitted by the panchayatdhars. Thereafter, request for conducting of postmortem was submitted vide request letters Exs.P85 to P148. Thereafter, postmortem was conducted and the postmortem reports were also issued (Exs.P149 to P212). The investigation officer deposed that A3 Selvam had put up the temporary thatched roof. The ceiling was very low. Electrical arrangements were not made properly. The fans were not installed in a proper manner. Electricity was drawn directly from the plug point. Fire extinguishers were not installed. The staircases were not of sufficient width. The building was a residential house. Without making any changes, it had been unlawfully converted into a marriage hall. In view of the enormous heat emanating from the focus light, the decoration papers caught fire and as a result, the occurrence has taken place. Therefore, he altered the FIR from under Section 174 of Cr.Pc to Sections http://www.judis.nic.in 13 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 285 and 304 A IPC and Section 39(1) of Indian Electricity Act and forwarded the same to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The alteration report is Ex.P213. He also arrested Sadagopan and Balaji in the presence of witnesses and recorded their confession statements. Based on the confession statement of Balaji, video camera and other materials were seized under Ex.P216. Thereafter, he handed over the case to Shri.Masilamani for continuing the investigation. Though it was Masilamani who continued the investigation, PW.49 assisted him. Thiru.Masilamani examined few other witnesses. He arrested Ramasamy and A1 Dharmaraj on 27.01.2004. Forensic opinion was also obtained. After completing the investigation, he filed final report before the jurisdictional magistrate. Since Masilamani had passed away, he could not be examined as witness.
12.PW.49 was extensively cross examined by the counsel for the accused. A suggestion was put that due to the flames emanating from the sacrificial fire, the occurrence had taken place. The investigation officer denied the said suggestion. He admitted that PW.1 in his complaint had stated that the occurrence has taken place due to electrical short-circuiting. He also admitted that there were two staircases leading to the ground floor from the terrace portion and that http://www.judis.nic.in 14 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 PW.5 Jayashree did not state during the investigation that for video coverage, all the wires were inserted into a single plug point or that Gururajan told her that taking too many connections from a single plug point would cause overload. Similar contradictions through omission in respect of testimonies of PW.6, PW.10, PW.14, PW.15, PW.16 and PW.21 and PW.30 were elicited from the said Investigation Officer during cross examination. He also strangely admitted during cross examination that the marriage hall was a licensed wedding hall and that there was remitting of tax to the corporation. But for erecting pandal, no permission was obtained.
13.The learned trial Judge put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.Pc. All the accused almost chose to feign ignorance. Though they stated that they have witnesses to examine, no one was examined on their side. A1 and A2 filed written statement terming the prosecution evidence as false. The learned trial Judge after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, found all the accused guilty of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them as mentioned above. Questioning the same, these appeals have been filed by all the accused except A2. http://www.judis.nic.in 15 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012
14.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned trial Judge erred in finding the accused guilty. He would point out that though a large number of witnesses were examined, their stand was not uniform as regards the source of fire. While certain witnesses would claim that due to heat emanating from the focus light, the decoration papers caught fire and that was the cause for the accident, few others claimed that it was due to electric leakage. Some other witnesses were not quite clear as to how the decoration papers/pandal caught fire. The prosecution did not examine any independent or expert witness.
15.The learned Senior Counsel also would contend that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 304 A and 338 of IPC are wholly absent in this case. What happened was a tragedy of monumental proportions. But it was purely accidental and the accused herein cannot be fastened with any penal liability. To bring home the charge under Section 304 A IPC, the element of recklessness or negligence should be present in a very high degree. That was not the case here. The marriage function used to be held in the ground floor. It was at the last moment, the venue came to be shifted to the terrace portion in the upstairs. Without getting permission from the manager of http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 the hall, the bridegroom had arranged putting up of pandal through A3 Selvam. The building owner was nowhere in the picture. Therefore, the Senior Counsel would submit that on the strength of the available evidence, the appellants could not have been found guilty.
16.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uphaar Cinema tragedy case (Sushil Ansal vs. State, (2014) 6 SCC 173), has summed up the principles of penal liability to be fastened in such circumstances and applying the same, the judgment passed by the court below does not call for any interference.
17.I carefully considered the rival contentions. I propose to examine the case of the appellants individually and one by one. The first appellant could have been found guilty only if the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had done any rash or negligent act. It is not in dispute that A1 was the videographer. He was assisted by A2 Balaji. Many of the witnesses have testified that in order to get better angle and to capture the images better, the videographers had stood on plastic chairs. Most of the witnesses have deposed that A2 Balaji was holding up the focus light and when it came in contact with http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 the decoration papers, the decoration papers caught fire and soon spread and in the process, the pandal also fell. A2 was rightly found guilty and he has not chosen to file any appeal before this Court. It was probably because he has only fined and not sentenced to any term of imprisonment. Be that as it may, even according to the witnesses, it was because the focus light came in contact with the decoration papers, the entire occurrence had taken place. If that is so, it is only A2 who can be held liable for the occurrence. A1 cannot be made vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act committed by A2 Balaji.
18.The entire attention of A1 was only on capturing the images from the best possible angle. It was Balaji who ought to have held the focus lamp properly. He should have maintained a safe distance from the ceiling and the decoration papers. It is entirely his fault that led to the occurrence and he was rightly convicted. But, A1 cannot be fastened with any kind of liability. I hold that the prosecution has not at all established its case against the first accused. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused is set aside and A1 is acquitted of all charges. A3 Selvam died even before the start of the trial and the charges against him stood abated.
http://www.judis.nic.in 18 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012
19.The question arises as to whether the learned trial Judge was justified in finding A4 Ramasamy guilty of all the charges. Initially, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that A4 was not even in the spot and that therefore, he should not be made liable. However, in all fairness, the learned Senior Counsel on instructions submitted that A4 is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs to the credit of S.C No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirapalli, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and that even while disputing his penal liability, he is ready to abide by the order for payment of compensation. While I appreciate the fairness of the learned Senior Counsel, I will have to necessarily express my inability to accept his contention that the building owner should be absolved of all liability. It is true that the investigation officer had admitted in the cross examination that the building was a licensed one. I can only express my shock and surprise at the answer given by the investigation officer.
20.As per the Tamil Nadu Public Building (Licensing) Act, 1965, a marriage hall is a public building. Section 3 of the said Act clearly states that public buildings should be licensed. In fact, the license should be renewed once in three years. No Objection Certificate must be obtained http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 from the Fire and Rescue Services Department. In this case, if the building enjoyed a license on the date of occurrence, certainly the accused would have marked the same. At least, during the pendency of this appeal, it could have been marked by filing a petition under Section 391 of Cr.Pc by way of additional evidence. On the side of the accused, there has been nil evidence. The accused themselves have not filed any piece of evidence to show that the building was duly licensed under the Tamil Nadu Public Building (Licensing) Act, 1965. When the accused have abandoned the crease, it is strange that the investigation officer should bat in their favour. Merely because tax was being remitted and the Corporation was also accepting the same, that will not make it a licensed building. The public prosecutors must educate the investigation officers about the implications of their testimony. Of course, the investigation officers must be fair, truthful and go by the record. But, it is not expected of them to give gratuitous answers that may favour the accused.
21.It is not the case of the accused (A4 and A5) that fire extinguishers were installed in the terrace portion. On the other hand, a specific suggestion was put to PW.1 that no permission was granted by the hall management for conducting the function in the terrace portion. http://www.judis.nic.in 20 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 One can take judicial notice of the fact that whenever a building is given on hire, when the functions are conducted, the manager will always be present. In fact, he is there to ensure that nothing amiss takes place. In view of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, I can very well presume this. Without his concurrence, no pandal could have been erected in the terrace portion. Temporary electricity connection could not have been drawn. It is true that there were two staircases connecting the first floor and the ground floor. But one was very narrow and the other had a bend. It is not in dispute that the building was originally a residential house. The learned Senior Counsel would of course claim that even when A4 Ramasamy purchased it, it was being run as a wedding hall. But that will not improve the case of Ramasamy. In fact, the issue is no longer res integra. In Susil Ansal v. State, (2014) 6 SCC 173, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“72....negligence signifies the breach of a duty to do something which a reasonably prudent man would under the circumstances have done or doing something which when judged from reasonably prudent standards should not have been done.......
80.We may now advert to the second and an equally, if not, more important dimension of the offence http://www.judis.nic.in 21 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 punishable Under Section 304A Indian Penal Code, viz.
that the act of the accused must be the proximate, immediate or efficient cause of the death of the victim without the intervention of any other person's negligence.......
81.Suffice it to say that this Court has in Kurban Hussein's case (supra) accepted in unequivocal terms the correctness of the proposition that criminal liability Under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code shall arise only if the prosecution proves that the death of the victim was the result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that such act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another person's negligence......
82...To sum up: for an offence Under Section 304A to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was the causa causans that resulted in the death of the victim....” That was also a case concerning the penal liability of the owners of a cinema hall in which a major fire tragedy took place. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles regarding degree of care expected in respect of public places which have large number of visitors. To the common law duty of care is also added a statutory duty. The occupier http://www.judis.nic.in 22 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 has a duty to ensure safety of visitors against all foreseeable dangers and harm. It is a continuing obligation which the occupier owes towards every invitee.
22.Applying the principles set out above, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that by running an unlicensed building as a wedding hall, Thiru.Ramasamy has been criminally negligent. If the first floor was not available for performing functions, the very entry should have been barred. The negligence on the part of A4 Ramasamy led to a tragedy of monumental proportions. I therefore indicated to the learned Senior Counsel that I propose to confirm the conviction as well as the sentence imposed on A4. Sensing the mood of the court, the learned Senior Counsel on instructions from the fourth accused Ramasamy submitted that he would abide by the decision of the court. He also undertook to remit the compensation amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He pointed out that the fourth accused is now aged about 65 years. He is suffering from quite a few ailments and that therefore, he pleaded for modification of sentence. He also undertook to surrender on or before 20.07.2020. Taking note of the mitigating factors pleaded by the learned Senior Counsel, even while confirming the conviction imposed on http://www.judis.nic.in 23 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 the fourth accused, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment for each charge and on each count. Of course, they would run concurrently. A4 Ramasamy shall deposit a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs to the credit of S.C No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. This amount will be disbursed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli to the affected persons by applying appropriate yardstick based on situational considerations. It cannot be a mechanical distribution. The governing standard must be the dependency and need factor. For instance, a seventy year old man might have died and a seven year old child suffered severe burn injuries. I would think the injured child must be given more compensation compared to the kin of the deceased old man. I do not want to sound insensitive. But I believe I have given sufficient hint to the learned Principal Sessions Judge to decide on the mode of distribution. He will ensure that the compensation reaches the affected persons at the earliest.
23.A5 Sadagopan was the manager of the wedding hall during the relevant time. His conduct is simply inexcusable. The man was on the spot and he ought not to have permitted putting up the pandal in the http://www.judis.nic.in 24 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 terrace portion. He ought not to have permitted drawing of temporary electricity connection. If only he had been strict, the entire tragedy could have been averted. As the manager, he also knew that the building in question was not a licensed one. There were no fire extinguishers installed. The staircases did not allow easy escape. Thus, the conduct of A4 and A5 have been the immediate and proximate cause for the deaths. A5 has to share equal blame with A4 Ramasamy. However, taking note of the mitigating factors pleaded by the learned Senior Counsel, even while confirming the conviction, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment for each charge and on each count. They would run concurrently.
24.A6 Murugesan is the electrician who had given temporary electric connection. It is not in dispute that he was the electrician in question. A6 has not taken any plea anywhere that he had been falsely implicated. His defence would be that he was not at fault. Now, the question arises as to whether A6 was having license to act as an electrician. There is nothing on record to show that A6 was licensed to act as an electrician. In the first floor, the electrical lights and pedestal fans had been installed. Videography was being taken. All the electrical appliances were getting energy from the junction box. Since heavy load http://www.judis.nic.in 25 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 was being drawn for multi purposes, excess heat had obviously been triggered. When one examines the cause for fire accident in such cases, one can note that extension cords can send excess heat and when they get in contact with inflammable items, the result will be fire. In this case, due to unsafe drawing of electricity connection, there has been sending of excess heat to the focus light and when it came in contact with the decoration papers, the occurrence had taken place. That is the immediate cause for the accident occurrence. Therefore, I confirm the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Judge against the sixth accused as such.
25.In the result, both the criminal appeals stand partly allowed.
18.05.2020 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Skm To
1.The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy District. http://www.judis.nic.in 26 Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
Skm Crl A(MD)Nos.126 & 132 of 2012 18.05.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in