2016 Deonar dump yard fire: Court says simply because accused deal in scrap, cannot infer they caused fire

2016 Deonar dump yard fire: Court says simply because accused deal in scrap, cannot infer they caused fire

Many prosecution witnesses did not support the case during the trial - including a witness who was the supervisor at the Corporation and another - an eyewitness who claimed to have seen an accused set fire to the garbage.

Bhavna UchilUpdated: Tuesday, April 19, 2022, 08:57 PM IST
article-image
Representational Image | ANI

A sessions court that Saturday acquitted 17 persons, mostly ragpickers and scrap dealers who were booked in 2016 for causing a massive fire at the Deonar dumping ground. The court said in its judgment that simply because they are involved in either collection or purchase of scrap, they are responsible for the fire.

As per the Shivaji Nagar police station’s case, the solid waste in the dumping ground had caught fire when ragpickers and scrap collectors had set fire to them to separate metal and cable from other waste. It had claimed that since dealers buy the wire from them only after it is separated from the insulation, they have a practice of setting fire to get the metal. It was such an act that had led to the fire, the police had claimed. It had booked them for unlawfully and negligently setting garbage afire, thereby endangering human life and also causing damage to the civic body’s property.

Additional Sessions Judge UM Padwad concluded in the judgment that the prosecution has totally failed to adduce even the slightest evidence to show that the accused could be responsible for the fire. “Simply because the accused persons deal in either collection or purchase of scrap, it cannot be inferred that they were also involved in setting the solid waste afire or responsible for the fire in question,” the judgement stated, adding that for complete lack of evidence, the accused persons are entitled to acquittal.

Many prosecution witnesses did not support the case during the trial - including a witness who was the supervisor at the Corporation and another - an eyewitness who claimed to have seen an accused set fire to the garbage.

RECENT STORIES

Bombay HC Refuses Interim Relief To Filmmaker Ramesh Sippy In Family Assets Case

Bombay HC Refuses Interim Relief To Filmmaker Ramesh Sippy In Family Assets Case

Mumbai: POCSO Court Sentences 2 Men To 10 Years In Prison For Eve-Teasing & Sexual Harassment Of...

Mumbai: POCSO Court Sentences 2 Men To 10 Years In Prison For Eve-Teasing & Sexual Harassment Of...

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crore Compensation & Monthly Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crore Compensation & Monthly Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

Bombay High Court Questions Panvel Municipal Corporation's Retroactive Property Tax Demand

Bombay High Court Questions Panvel Municipal Corporation's Retroactive Property Tax Demand

Residents Cannot Be Penalised For Authorities' Delay In Executing Public Amenities Works: Bombay...

Residents Cannot Be Penalised For Authorities' Delay In Executing Public Amenities Works: Bombay...