Supreme Court overturns acquittal in Haryana hooch tragedy case: State of Haryana vs. Krishan & Anr. (2017) INSC 488

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: June 09, 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 488

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (authored by A.K. Sikri, J.)

Can a licensed liquor vendor be held responsible for deaths and injuries caused by spurious liquor sold at their shop? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case stemming from a devastating hooch tragedy in Haryana. The court examined the evidence to determine the culpability of the accused, who were licensed vendors, in a case where many people died or lost their eyesight after consuming spurious liquor. The judgment explores the extent of responsibility of the vendors in such cases. The bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, with the judgment authored by Justice A.K. Sikri.

Case Background

In December 1980, a tragic incident occurred in Kalanwali, Haryana, where 36 people died and 44 others suffered permanent blindness after consuming spurious liquor purchased from a licensed vendor. The liquor was found to be adulterated with methyl alcohol, a poisonous substance. The incident led to multiple FIRs and a joint trial of 48 accused persons. The trial court convicted only two accused, Krishan and Som Nath, who were the licensed vendors, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), Section 328 IPC (causing hurt by poison), and Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. The High Court later acquitted these two individuals, leading to the State of Haryana filing an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Krishan and Som Nath, the licensed vendors, while acquitting all other accused. The convicted individuals appealed to the High Court. The High Court, initially, made observations about the acquittal of other accused and directed the State to file an appeal against their acquittal. This direction was challenged in the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court’s order. Subsequently, the High Court, noting the trial court’s observations about the State’s negligence, referred the matter to a Full Bench to address questions regarding investigation procedures in such cases and the State’s liability to pay compensation. The Full Bench then decided to hear the main appeal along with the referred questions, ultimately acquitting the vendors and directing the State to pay compensation. The State of Haryana then appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:
✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for murder. The trial court convicted the accused under this section for causing the deaths of 36 people.
✓ Section 120B of the IPC: This section defines and punishes criminal conspiracy. The trial court used this section to establish the conspiracy between the accused to sell spurious liquor.
✓ Section 328 of the IPC: This section deals with causing hurt by poison. The trial court also convicted the accused under this section for causing harm by selling poisonous liquor.
✓ Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914: This section deals with offenses related to the illegal sale of liquor. The accused were convicted under this section for selling spurious liquor.
✓ Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the relevancy of facts that are the occasion, cause, or effect of facts in issue. The Supreme Court used this section to establish the relevance of the statements made by victims immediately after consuming the liquor.
The legal framework is used to establish the criminal liability of the vendors for selling spurious liquor, which resulted in deaths and injuries.

Arguments

Arguments by the Respondents (Accused):

• There was no evidence of conspiracy to convict them under Section 120B of the IPC.
• Without a conviction under Section 120B, there was no substantive charge under Section 302 of the IPC against them.
• The trial court should have framed separate charges for each murder, as per Sections 218 and 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
• There was no evidence to prove their involvement in the preparation or sale of spurious liquor.
• There was no proof that they knew the liquor was spurious or that they were responsible for its preparation.
• No evidence showed that methanol was provided to their employees with their consent.
• There was no evidence that the deceased or those who lost their vision consumed liquor from their vends.

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Haryana):

• The respondents were the licensed vendors, and the spurious liquor was sold from their vends.
• Victims and their relatives stated that they had purchased the liquor from the respondents’ vends.
• The respondents tried to destroy evidence by throwing away liquor bottles after the incident.
• The cause of death and blindness was the consumption of methyl alcohol, which was found in the viscera of the deceased and the medical examination of the victims.
• The respondents were aware of the toxicity of methanol and the potential consequences of selling such liquor.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The respondents argued that the lack of direct evidence linking the specific bottles of liquor to the victims was a critical flaw in the prosecution’s case. They also highlighted the absence of a proven conspiracy and the failure to frame individual charges for each murder, which was a novel approach to challenge the conviction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the respondents (Krishan and Som Nath) despite the evidence on record linking them to the sale of spurious liquor that caused deaths and injuries.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326: This case was referred to by the High Court to support the conclusion that there cannot be a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC for two persons when others are acquitted.
• Joseph Kurian Philip Jose v. State of Kerala, (1994) 6 SCC 535: The trial court had invoked this case to convict the respondents. However, the High Court discarded the conclusion of the trial court.
• Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Supreme Court used this provision to establish the relevance of the statements made by victims immediately after consuming the liquor.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that even if the charge of conspiracy is not proved, the culpability of the respondents was established individually.
• Joseph Kurian Philip Jose v. State of Kerala, (1994) 6 SCC 535: The Supreme Court did not directly rely on this case but upheld the trial court’s reasoning that the respondents were aware of the toxicity of methanol and the potential consequences of selling such liquor.
• Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Supreme Court used this provision to establish the relevance of the statements made by victims immediately after consuming the liquor, thus establishing a link between the respondents and the tragedy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• The sheer scale of the tragedy, with 36 deaths and 44 cases of blindness, highlighted the severity of the crime.
• The direct statements of the victims and their relatives, immediately after the incident, pinpointing the respondents’ vends as the source of the spurious liquor.
• The fact that the respondents were licensed vendors, which implied a higher degree of responsibility and knowledge of the products they were selling.
• The respondents’ attempt to destroy evidence by throwing away the remaining liquor bottles, which indicated their awareness of the spurious nature of the liquor.
• The medical evidence confirming that the cause of death and blindness was the consumption of methyl alcohol, which was present in the spurious liquor.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court gave more weightage to the factual aspects of the case, such as the testimonies of the victims and the actions of the accused, while applying the relevant legal provisions to those facts.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the direct evidence linking the spurious liquor to the respondents’ vends, the medical evidence of methyl alcohol poisoning, and the respondents’ actions after the incident. The Court rejected the High Court’s view that there was no evidence to connect the respondents with the tragedy. The Supreme Court reasoned that the respondents, as licensed vendors, had a responsibility to ensure the safety of the liquor they sold. The court also noted that the respondents’ attempt to destroy evidence indicated their awareness of the spurious nature of the liquor and their culpability in the crime. The court also reasoned that even if the charge of conspiracy was not proved, the respondents were individually culpable. The court concluded that the respondents’ actions fell within the ambit of Section 300 fourthly of the IPC, as they had knowledge that selling such liquor could cause death or grievous injury.

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s argument that there was no direct evidence linking the specific bottles of liquor to the victims, but the Court rejected it, stating that the circumstantial evidence, coupled with the direct statements of the victims and the respondents’ actions, was sufficient to establish their guilt. The Court also considered the argument that the respondents did not have direct knowledge of the methanol content in the liquor, but the Court held that their role as licensed vendors and their actions after the incident indicated that they were aware of the potential consequences of selling such liquor.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that licensed vendors have a duty of care to ensure the safety of the products they sell. The Court emphasized that the respondents’ actions, coupled with the evidence, established their culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted that the respondents were not naive and had exploited the vulnerability of the villagers for their personal gain.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “Such contemporary statements of those very persons who suffered loss of eye-sight immediately after the incident cannot be ignored and there is no reason to disbelieve them. Such statements also become relevant under Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
• “Even if this is a lapse on the part of the prosecution, this very conduct of the respondents in throwing away remaining stock becomes a supporting piece of evidence along with other evidence brought on record.”
• “The respondents cannot be treated as mere cat’s paw and naive. They have exploited the resilience nature of bucolic and rustic villagers.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, and the judgment was authored by Justice A.K. Sikri.

Key Takeaways

• Licensed vendors have a high degree of responsibility for the safety of the products they sell.
• Direct statements of victims and their relatives, made immediately after an incident, are considered strong evidence.
• Attempting to destroy evidence can be used against the accused.
• Even without direct evidence of a conspiracy, individuals can be held culpable based on their actions and knowledge.
• The court emphasized the need for thorough investigations in cases involving mass casualties due to spurious liquor.
• This judgment can serve as a precedent for holding licensed vendors accountable for the sale of spurious products that cause harm.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the respondents surrender to undergo the sentence inflicted by the trial court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that licensed vendors are responsible for the products they sell and can be held liable for the consequences of selling spurious liquor, even without direct proof of conspiracy or intent. This judgment reinforces the principle that licensed vendors have a duty of care to ensure the safety of their products. It also clarifies that circumstantial evidence, coupled with direct statements of victims and the conduct of the accused, can be sufficient to establish culpability. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case marks a departure from the High Court’s view, which had emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking specific bottles to the victims. The Supreme Court’s judgment has reaffirmed the trial court’s conviction and established a stricter standard of accountability for licensed vendors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s acquittal of Krishan and Som Nath, restoring the trial court’s conviction. The court held that the respondents, as licensed vendors, were responsible for the sale of spurious liquor that led to the deaths and blindness of numerous individuals. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the statements of victims and their relatives, the respondents’ attempt to destroy evidence, and the medical evidence of methyl alcohol poisoning. The judgment reinforces the principle that licensed vendors have a duty of care to ensure the safety of the products they sell and can be held accountable for the consequences of selling spurious goods.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 328, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Punjab Excise Act, 1914

Child Categories:

• Section 61(1)(a), Punjab Excise Act, 1914

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Spurious Liquor
• Hooch Tragedy
• Criminal Conspiracy
• Culpable Homicide

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the State of Haryana vs. Krishan & Anr. case?

A: The main issue was whether the licensed liquor vendors could be held responsible for the deaths and injuries caused by the sale of spurious liquor from their vends.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s acquittal of the vendors and restored the trial court’s conviction, holding them responsible for the tragedy.

Q: What evidence did the Supreme Court rely on to convict the vendors?

A: The Supreme Court relied on the statements of victims and their relatives, the fact that the vendors were licensed, their attempt to destroy evidence, and the medical evidence of methyl alcohol poisoning.

Q: What is the legal significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment establishes a precedent for holding licensed vendors accountable for the safety of the products they sell and reinforces their duty of care.

Q: Can a vendor be held liable even if there is no direct proof that they knew the liquor was spurious?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court held that licensed vendors can be held liable based on their actions, knowledge, and the circumstances, even without direct proof of their knowledge of the spurious nature of the liquor.

Q: What does this mean for future cases involving spurious liquor?

A: This judgment sets a stricter standard of accountability for licensed vendors and can be used as a precedent in similar cases involving the sale of spurious products.