Wages of Uphaar sin: Rs 60cr - 17 Years parents got to spend with daughter • 18 Years parents spent pursuing the case • 5+ Months Brothers Ansal spent in jail

TT, New Delhi, Aug. 19: Brothers Ansal need not spend in jail more time than the five-plus months already served if they pay Rs 60 crore for the negligence that caused the death of 59 people in the Uphaar cinema fire in Delhi 18 years ago.

Soon after the Supreme Court delivered the verdict today, a sobbing father recounted another set of figures.

"I spent 13 years and 17 years with my children but I had to spend 18 years to fight the legal battle. Unfortunately, this is what we have got from the Supreme Court today," said R. Krishnamoorthy, whose wife Neelam was by his side outside the court.

Their daughter Unnati, 17, and son Ujjwal, 13, died in the inferno on June 13, 1997, when the film Border was playing in Uphaar.

The real estate tycoons, Sushil, 78, and Gopal, 69, have been slapped with a fine of Rs 30 crore each.

"Prima facie we feel that the accused have undergone over five months' sentence. Ends of justice, we feel, would be served if the accused are directed to pay a sum of Rs 30 crore each to the Delhi government for setting up a trauma centre," said the three-judge bench of Justices A.R. Dave, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Goel.

It added that a detailed order would be passed soon. The Ansals will have to pay the fine in three months to the Delhi government.

The apex court has upheld the conviction of Sushil and Gopal under Section 304 A. The section - causing death due to rash and negligent act - carries a maximum imprisonment of two years or fine or both. In law, the "or" makes a big difference: it means imprisonment is not mandatory and a fine can be sufficient punishment.

Since the brothers have spent less than six months in jail, it is unlikely that the conviction will affect their roles as chairmen of their companies, according to industry sources. Sushil heads Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd, whose turnover last year was Rs 860 crore, while Gopal chairs Ansal Buildwell Ltd with a turnover of Rs 99 crore.

The matter had reached the three-judge bench because a two-judge bench had earlier given a split verdict. (See chart)

It was alleged during the trial that the toll in the Uphaar fire had risen to 59 largely because the establishment had constructed additional seats near the exit point, which cut off the escape route for many victims.

Today, Krishnamoorthy, the father of Unnati and Ujjwal, said: "They (the Ansals) have got freedom with Rs 60 crore. We waited for a full 18 years to see the Ansals go behind the bars...."

Neelam said they could never rest in peace. The couple had earlier said they were offered inducements and pursued by those claiming to be representatives of the accused to "settle the matter". At one point during the trial in one of the courts, one of the Ansals had turned towards the couple, wept and pleaded with them with folded hands to forgive them.

But the parents had soldiered on - until this afternoon.

Relatives of some of the victims have asked why the Ansals were tried under Section 304 A and not IPC Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which carries a maximum jail term of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

The verdict is also expected to fuel a debate whether a fine, however high it may be, will be as strong a deterrent as imprisonment.

But senior criminal lawyer Basava Prabhu Patil told this paper that although the amount imposed on the Ansals was perhaps unparalleled, there was little unusual in the court not sending them to jail.

"The law provides for either the imposition of a fine, or sentence, or both. The discretion is with the court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There have been a number of cases where people involved in rash and negligent acts have been let off with a fine," said Patil.

The lawyer pointed out that unlike certain laws such as the Prevention of Corruption Act that prescribes a minimum sentence for some offences, there is no such provision in Section 304 A.

Besides, the advanced age of the accused may also have acted as a mitigating factor, other lawyers said.

They said the court also may have kept the interest of society at large in mind and focused on ensuring that the convicts pay for the trauma centre for accident victims.