(i) and s. 57 (A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act by the courts below is sustainable in law.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 307 and 326/120B – Akbari Act – ss. 57(A)(1)(ii) and 55 – Conspiracy of alcohol poisoning – A1, kingpin of the illicit liquor business alongwith A3, A10, and A11 hatched a conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit to sell the same for an unlawful gain through the outlet operated by A1, and the consumption of the same resulted in the death of 7 innocent people, blindness in 11 people, and injuries to 40 people – Conviction qua A1 upheld right up to this Court – Conviction of the accused-A10 and A11 u/ss. 302, 307 and 326/120 B and s. 55(a), (h), (i) and s. 57 (A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence u/s. 302 and s. 57(A)(1)(ii), along with other sentences, by the courts below – Interference with:
Held: Not called for – Relationship between A10 and A11, and their relationship with A1; and the role played by each one of them in hatching a conspiracy, if any, supply of Biosole and subsequent malice in the supply and sale of illicit liquor established – Cause of death of the deceased persons was poisoning caused by methyl alcohol, so also the persons sufferred injuries on their body parts as a result of such consumption – Prosecution succeeded in establishing the offence of criminal conspiracy of A10 and A11 with A1 – Accused failed to justify the incriminating circumstances appearing against them – Offence u/s. 57(A)(1)(ii) of mixing noxious substance likely to endanger human life, attributable to them – Also, in res gestae ss. 6 and 8 of the Evidence Act applicable – Furthermore, there is evidence relating to the transport, bottling and sale of methyl alcohol – Accused persons have been established to be in conspiracy for common objectives throughout – Conviction of A10 and A11 u/s. 55(a), (h) and (i) upheld – Thus, the involvement of the accused persons in the sale and mixing of methyl alcohol with spirit as part of the conspiracy, resulting in deaths and injuries to many innocent persons proved – Conviction of A10 and A11 u/ss. 302, 307, 326 and 120B IPC and 57(A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act, by the courts below upheld. [Para 16, 37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48-50]
Criminal Law – Concurrent convictions – Interference – When warranted:
Held: It is when the finding is perverse; finding is based or built on inadmissible evidence; and the courts below have not considered or wrongly discarded vital pieces of evidence that would tilt the balance in favor of the accused. [Para 51]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 120B – Criminal conspiracy – Necessary ingredients to constitute a criminal conspiracy – Elucidated. [Para 35] Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XX, r. 5, sub rules 2 and 3 – Criminal Appeals – Suggestion for amendment of sub-rule 3: Held: Perusal of sub-Rules 2 & 3 of r. 5 shows that physical copies of the original records are to be called for, in criminal appeals involving sentence of life or the death penalty – It is suggested that sub-rule 3 be amended to insert the words ‘soft copy’ before the words ‘original records’, resulting in e-copies of the Original Records being requisitioned – This would facilitate a much quicker availability of such records to the court as also further a more environmentally conscious approach – Such requisition of the soft copy of the record be extended to cases where leave is granted against an order of acquittal or conviction – Also, soft copy of the records, once received be provided to the counsel appearing for the parties. [Para 58]
Judicial deprecation – Practice of depositions of material witnesses not being placed on record – Effect:
Held: Such practice often cause repeated adjournments, which goes to the root of pendency and delay in disposing of appeals – Thus, a suggestion to amend sub rule 3 of rule 5 of Order XX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 by inserting the words ‘soft copy’ before the words original records resulting in e-copies of the original records being requisitioned, at a quicker pace – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XX, r. 5, sub rules
2 and 3. [Para 56]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI (2003) SCC (Crl.) 869; P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142; Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC Online SC 784; Hari and Anr. v. State of UP. 2021 SCC Online SC 1131; Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624; State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253: 1999 ( 3 ) SC 1; Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1: 2013 (15 ) SCR 1; Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Krishan (2017) 8 SCC 204: [2017] 7 SCR 251; Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256: [2014] 3 SCR 551; Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC Online 1364; Chandran v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161: [2011] 8 SCR 273; P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187: [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 526; Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P. (2022) 8 SCC 253; Ravasaheb and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 5 SCC 391 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.