The Times of India 20.11.2010
Builder tells court it was an act of god, but blames MCD
NEW DELHI: A trial court on Friday remanded Amrit Singh, the owner of the building that collapsed in Lalita Park on Monday, in police custody for two days. The crime branch of Delhi Police, which was entrusted with the task of probing the case on Friday, had sought three days' police custody of the accused saying it has constituted a team of experts to look into the matter. "The accused is remanded in two days police custody," additional chief metropolitan magistrate Kiran Bansal said.
The crime branch pleaded that it has to unravel the chain of events pertaining to the material that was used in the construction of the ill-fated building. It also said it needs to interrogate the accused regarding the identity of the contractor who had built the building.
The counsel for the accused, however, opposed the plea of the prosecution contending that whatever was required by the investigating agency had already been provided by the accused house owner.
Singh pleaded before the court that the incident was a "natural disaster and an act of God". "It was a natural disaster; an act of God. He (Singh) had followed all the rules and also had informed officials of MCD and other authorities about water getting collected in the basement of the building, thus making the structure weak. Enough apprehensions had been raised by Singh but the officials concerned failed to act. No official inspected the building and hence they are certainly at fault," Singh's counsel Sarfaraz Asif submitted in the court.
To this, ACMM Kiran Bansal questioned the lawyer if all the five floors were built at one go or Singh added them later on. Asif claimed ignorance and said he could not respond to the question for want of knowledge, He added that the demand of the investigators for extending custodial interrogation of Singh for two more days was with an intent to harass his client.
Countering his claims of innocence, investigating officer Ashok Sharma told the court that the crime in question was serious in nature and that Singh's antecedents were adequate to show his criminal bent of mind.
Taking his submission on record, the ACMM asked the investigating officer whether the department had the records of cases against Singh. "Of the 25 cases against Singh, he was held guilty in four while the courts acquitted him in 21 cases for want of sufficient evidence," Sharma said.
The accused, who was arrested on November 16 from Geeta Colony, was booked under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC — which prescribed a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Seventy people were killed and 82 injured in the building collapse. Most of the victims were migrant labourers and their family members.
The crime branch pleaded that it has to unravel the chain of events pertaining to the material that was used in the construction of the ill-fated building. It also said it needs to interrogate the accused regarding the identity of the contractor who had built the building.
The counsel for the accused, however, opposed the plea of the prosecution contending that whatever was required by the investigating agency had already been provided by the accused house owner.
Singh pleaded before the court that the incident was a "natural disaster and an act of God". "It was a natural disaster; an act of God. He (Singh) had followed all the rules and also had informed officials of MCD and other authorities about water getting collected in the basement of the building, thus making the structure weak. Enough apprehensions had been raised by Singh but the officials concerned failed to act. No official inspected the building and hence they are certainly at fault," Singh's counsel Sarfaraz Asif submitted in the court.
To this, ACMM Kiran Bansal questioned the lawyer if all the five floors were built at one go or Singh added them later on. Asif claimed ignorance and said he could not respond to the question for want of knowledge, He added that the demand of the investigators for extending custodial interrogation of Singh for two more days was with an intent to harass his client.
Countering his claims of innocence, investigating officer Ashok Sharma told the court that the crime in question was serious in nature and that Singh's antecedents were adequate to show his criminal bent of mind.
Taking his submission on record, the ACMM asked the investigating officer whether the department had the records of cases against Singh. "Of the 25 cases against Singh, he was held guilty in four while the courts acquitted him in 21 cases for want of sufficient evidence," Sharma said.
The accused, who was arrested on November 16 from Geeta Colony, was booked under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC — which prescribed a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Seventy people were killed and 82 injured in the building collapse. Most of the victims were migrant labourers and their family members.
