Home / Crime and Justice / Court Questions Sparkler Machine Blame in Goa Fire Case
Court Questions Sparkler Machine Blame in Goa Fire Case
9 Oct
Summary
- Court questioned why sparkler machine operators were not arrested.
- Bail granted as ownership knowledge insufficient for prosecution.
- Fire department report noted possibility, not certainty, of sparklers causing fire.
The Mapusa court granted bail to Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, observing a significant disparity in the investigation of a fire incident. The court pointed out that individuals who allegedly operated the sparkler machines at the Arpora venue, and who were aware of combustible materials, were not arrested.
In contrast, the Luthra brothers, who were in Delhi and not at the scene, were arrested. The court deemed the prosecution's reliance on ownership implying knowledge as insufficient for culpability, especially considering the lack of explanation for differential treatment. The charge sheet indicated that the event director and general manager, who handled the machines, were not arrested.
Prima facie, the court found no material in the chargesheet to suggest the Luthra brothers knew the sparkler machines were likely to cause death. While they knew the machines were used, evidence of authorization or awareness of hazards was lacking.
The prosecution's reliance on the fire department's report was also questioned. The report stated the department lacked a specialized forensic team and could not determine the exact cause of the fire, suggesting only a possibility that sparklers triggered it based on a demonstration.
This demonstration, conducted post-incident, showed that certain materials react to the machines. However, the court noted it did not prove the Luthra brothers' knowledge of such hazards or that the establishment's roof was made of susceptible materials. Further forensic reports are awaited.
