Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Kerala Abkari Act Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Jayan vs. State of Kerala (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 October 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 743

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can a conviction be upheld when key evidence is missing and witness identification is unreliable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the illegal transportation of spirit, ultimately acquitting the accused due to lack of sufficient evidence. This judgment highlights the importance of thorough investigation and reliable witness testimony in criminal cases.

The core issue revolved around whether the prosecution could prove that the accused were involved in the illegal transportation of 6090 liters of spirit without a valid license, violating Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case, leading to the acquittal of all the accused. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on July 25, 1999, when a truck carrying 6090 liters of spirit in 174 plastic cans was stopped at the Mandapathin Kadavu check post in Kerala. The prosecution alleged that the truck, owned by the accused No. 1 (Jayan), was being driven by accused No. 2, with accused Nos. 3 and 4 accompanying him. It was further alleged that the truck had fake number plates and that the accused were transporting the spirit without a license.

During the check post inspection, it was alleged that the accused No. 2 suddenly started the truck, damaging the barricade and forcing a check post employee, Shri Balachandran Nair, to jump off the truck. The police were alerted, and after locating the truck, apprehended accused No. 2 and later accused No. 4. The accused No. 2 allegedly confessed that the spirit belonged to accused No. 1, who was his brother-in-law and a shop contractor. The police seized the truck, spirit, and plastic cans. The prosecution stated that the spirit samples were sent for chemical analysis, revealing that some contained ethyl alcohol while others contained a poisonous organophosphorus compound.

The prosecution’s case was that accused No. 1 had purchased the truck from PW3, Shri Rajendra Prasad, and replaced the original number plates with fake ones to transport the spirit illegally from Tamil Nadu. The accused No. 3 could not be traced, and the charge sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, which penalizes the illegal transportation of liquor. The relevant part of the provision is not provided in the source document.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of Accused No. 1:

• The primary argument was that the only evidence against Accused No. 1 was the alleged confession of Accused No. 2, which is not admissible in court.
• The prosecution failed to establish that Accused No. 1 was the owner of the truck.
• PW3, Shri Rajendra Prasad, who allegedly sold the truck to Accused No. 1, did not support the prosecution’s case.
• The Regional Transport Office (RTO) record regarding the truck’s ownership was not produced.
• The photocopy of the RC book found in the truck, which allegedly showed Accused No. 1 as the owner, was also not produced.
• No investigation was conducted to ascertain the engine and chassis number of the truck to confirm the correct registration number.
• Notices were issued to Shri Sajan Mathai, Shri Chandran, and PW3 Shri Rajendra Prasad to inquire about the truck’s ownership. Shri Sajan Mathai claimed to have sold the truck to Shri Makkar Maideen, and Shri Chandran claimed to have purchased it from Shri Ebrahim and sold it to PW3. However, none of these individuals were examined as witnesses.

Submissions on behalf of Accused Nos. 2 and 4:

• The entire prosecution case was deemed false.
• Shri Balachandran Nair, who allegedly climbed on the truck for inspection, was not examined as a witness.
• PW13, Shri Madhusudhanan Nair, an independent witness, identified Accused No. 2 in court nearly 12 years after the incident, without a prior Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade).
• The prosecution failed to prove the correct registration number of the truck, and no investigation was carried out to ascertain it.
• The government servant who allegedly climbed on the truck was not cited as a witness.
• There was no evidence presented against Accused No. 4.

Submissions of the Prosecution:

• The identification of Accused No. 2 by prosecution witnesses in court should not be disbelieved solely because a T.I. Parade was not conducted.
• PW13 is an independent witness whose testimony was not shaken in cross-examination.
• The evidence of PW13, supported by PW6, Shri A.S. Krishnan, proves that Accused No. 2 was the driver of the truck.
• The quantity of liquor containing injurious substances was not disputed.
• PW3’s reply to the notice, stating he sold the truck to Accused No. 1, proves that the ownership of the truck vested in Accused No. 1 at the relevant time.
• There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Sessions Court and High Court, considering the serious nature of the offense.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the issues can be inferred from the arguments and the court’s analysis:

1. Whether the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to prove that Accused No. 1 was the owner of the truck used for transporting the spirit.
2. Whether the identification of Accused Nos. 2 and 4 by the prosecution witnesses in court, after a significant time lapse and without a T.I. Parade, is reliable.
3. Whether the prosecution has sufficiently proven the charges under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act against all the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The court primarily relied on the principles of evidence and the burden of proof in criminal cases.

The court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act: This section deals with the illegal transportation of liquor. However, the specific wording of this section was not provided in the source document.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court applied Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act but found that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary elements of the offense.

The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the ownership of the truck by accused No. 1, stating, “There is no documentary evidence placed on record to show that the accused No. 1 was the owner of the offending truck at the relevant time.” The court also noted that the statements of accused No. 2 recorded in the mahazar were inadmissible as evidence, as they were “alleged confessional statements of the accused No. 2 made before the police officer.”

Regarding the identification of accused Nos. 2 and 4, the court observed, “The identification by a witness of the accused in the Court who has for the first time seen the accused in the incident of offence is a weak piece of evidence especially when there is a large time gap between the date of the incident and the date of recording of his evidence.” The court added that “in the facts of the case, the evidence of PW13 as regards the identification of the accused Nos.2 and 4 in the Court cannot be accepted.”

The court concluded that “the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful” due to the lack of evidence, unreliable witness testimonies, and failure to produce crucial documents.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence presented by the prosecution. The court emphasized the importance of reliable witness testimony and documentary evidence in criminal cases. The failure of the prosecution to produce critical documents, such as the RTO records and the photocopy of the RC book, significantly weakened their case. Additionally, the court was skeptical of the witness identification of the accused after a long time gap without a T.I. parade. The court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence and not on speculation or unreliable testimony.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

✓ The prosecution must provide solid documentary evidence to prove ownership in cases involving illegal transportation.

✓ Identification of accused in court after a long time gap without a Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) is considered weak evidence and may not be reliable.

✓ The prosecution must ensure all key witnesses are examined and crucial documents are produced in court.

✓ A conviction cannot be sustained based on inadmissible evidence or unreliable witness testimony.

✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough investigation and adherence to legal procedures in criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the impugned judgment and orders be set aside, and the appellants be acquitted of the offenses alleged against them. The court also directed that their bail bonds be cancelled and any fine paid be refunded to the appellants.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained without sufficient and reliable evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of documentary evidence, reliable witness testimony, and thorough investigation in criminal cases. This judgment also reinforces the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any doubt must benefit the accused. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of evidence in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted all the accused in this case due to the lack of substantial evidence, unreliable witness testimonies, and the prosecution’s failure to produce key documents. The judgment underscores the importance of thorough investigation, reliable evidence, and adherence to legal procedures in criminal cases.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Evidence, Witness Testimony, Kerala Abkari Act, Section 55(a), Illegal Transportation, Burden of Proof, Criminal Procedure

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Jayan vs. State of Kerala case?

A: The main issue was whether the prosecution could prove that the accused were involved in the illegal transportation of spirit without a valid license under the Kerala Abkari Act.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused?

A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to lack of sufficient documentary evidence, unreliable witness testimonies, and the prosecution’s failure to produce key documents.

Q: What is the significance of the Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) in this case?

A: The absence of a T.I. Parade made the identification of the accused by witnesses in court, after a long time gap, unreliable.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?

A: This judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough investigation, reliable evidence, and adherence to legal procedures in criminal cases. It highlights that convictions cannot be sustained without solid evidence.

Q: What is Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act?

A: Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act deals with the illegal transportation of liquor.