Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Spurious Liquor Case: Sajeev vs. State of Kerala (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 9th November 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 998
Judges: Abhay S. Oka J., Sanjay Karol J.
Can individuals be held criminally liable for conspiring to sell adulterated liquor that causes death and grievous harm? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, affirming the convictions of individuals involved in a tragic case of alcohol poisoning. This case highlights the severe consequences of illicit liquor trade and the legal principles that hold conspirators accountable. The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, with Justice Abhay S. Oka concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around a tragic incident of alcohol poisoning that occurred in Kerala. On April 4, 2003, Accused 1 (A1), A3, A10 (Sajeev), and A11 (Roy) conspired to mix methyl alcohol with spirit for illegal sale. On April 5, 2003, A10 and A11 transported 21 cans of methyl alcohol, labeled as ‘Biosole,’ to the residence of A1 and A3. Subsequently, A2, A7, and A8 brought spirit to the same location. A1 and A3 mixed the methyl alcohol with the spirit, and the resulting concoction was sold through A1’s outlet with the help of A4, A5, A6, A9, and A12.

Between April 9 and 10, 2003, seven people, including A4 and A12, died after consuming the spurious liquor. Several others, including PWs 1-9 and 11-12, fell ill. The police investigation commenced after receiving information about the incident, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 57A of the Abkari Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused persons, including A10 and A11, under Sections 302, 307, and 326 read with Section 120B of the IPC, and Sections 55(a), (h), (i) and 57(A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act. A10 and A11 were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offense under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 57(A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act, along with other concurrent sentences.

Accused No.1, 2, 5 -9, 10 and 11 appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the High Court. The High Court of Kerala upheld the convictions. Accused No.1’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on 29.01.2016. Accused Nos. 10 and 11 then filed separate appeals by special leave against the High Court’s judgment, which were registered as Criminal Appeal No.1154 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2015, respectively.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with attempt to murder.
• Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 57A of the Abkari Act: Pertains to the adulteration of liquor with noxious substances, with specific penalties for causing grievous hurt or death. Specifically, Section 57A(1) states:
  “Whoever mixes or permits to be mixed any noxious substance or any substance which is likely to endanger human life or to cause grievous hurt to human beings, with any liquor or intoxicating drug shall, on conviction, be punishable…”
• Section 55 of the Abkari Act: Addresses illegal import, export, transport, possession, bottling, and sale of liquor or intoxicating drugs. The relevant portion of Section 55 states:
  “Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act: (a) imports, exports, [transports, transits or possesses] liquor or any intoxicating drug; or (h) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale; or (i) Sells or stores for sales liquor] or any intoxicating drug.”

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the accused persons:

• The accused argued that the act of conspiracy could not be attributed to them.
• Even if they had supplied spirit (ethanol) as an independent business transaction, they were not responsible for the mixing and illegal sale of the end product.
• They contended that Section 57(1)(a) of the Abkari Act was not applicable as they had neither sold nor mixed the banned product.

Submissions on behalf of the State of Kerala:

• The prosecution argued that sufficient evidence was on record to prove the charge of conspiracy against A10 and A11.
• A10 and A11 were close associates and had sold methyl alcohol to A1 with full knowledge of its illegal use.

Submissions on behalf of Amicus Curiae:

• The Amicus Curiae presented a detailed analysis of the testimonies, exhibits, and the roles played by A10 and A11.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and High Court on A10 and A11 are sustainable in law.
2. The relationship between A10 & A11, and their relationship with A1.
3. 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.
• Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Power to examine the accused.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI [CITATION] and P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala [CITATION] to establish the charge of conspiracy.
• The court used Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) [CITATION], Hari and Anr. v. State of UP [CITATION] and Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat [CITATION] to accept the testimony of a hostile witness to the extent that the version is found to be dependable on careful scrutiny.
• The principles laid down in State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. [CITATION] were applied to determine the ingredients of a criminal conspiracy.
• The court reiterated the importance of an agreement between parties to establish conspiracy as held in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] and Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION].
• The court relied on State of Haryana v. Krishan [CITATION] to consider the conduct of the accused in attempting to destroy evidence.
• The court referred to Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [CITATION] and Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh [CITATION] regarding the duty of the accused to furnish explanations of incriminating circumstances.
• The court extensively discussed Chandran v. State of Kerala [CITATION], which dealt with Section 57(A)(1) of the Abkari Act, and reiterated that the offense is not limited to license holders.
• The court upheld the constitutionality of the burden of proof on the accused under Section 57A(5) of the Abkari Act, as held in P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala [CITATION].
• The court referred to Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P. [CITATION] and Ravasaheb and Ors. v. State of Karnataka [CITATION] regarding the limited circumstances for interference in concurrent convictions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Evidence of Conspiracy: The court found sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy between A10, A11, and A1 to mix and sell spurious liquor.
• Knowledge of Harmful Substance: The court emphasized that A10 and A11 were aware that they were supplying methyl alcohol, a harmful substance, for illegal use.
• Falsification of Records: The court noted that A11 had falsified records of his firm, RR Distributors, to conceal the delivery of methyl alcohol.
• Attempt to Destroy Evidence: The court considered A11’s attempt to destroy evidence at his residence by burning incriminating material.
• Lack of Explanation by Accused: The court noted that the accused failed to provide plausible explanations for the incriminating circumstances against them during their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Application of Abkari Act: The court held that Section 57A of the Abkari Act applies to anyone who mixes or permits the mixing of noxious substances with liquor, and the burden of proof is on the accused to show they did not commit the offense.
• Res Gestae: The court applied Section 6 and Section 8 of the Evidence Act to establish the presence of the accused at the scene, their knowledge of the substance, and their conduct.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the arguments of the accused, but rejected them based on the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution. The court emphasized that the accused were not merely suppliers of a substance but were active participants in a conspiracy that led to severe consequences. The court also considered the lack of plausible explanations from the accused as a factor in its decision.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“There can be no question about the absence of conspiracy. The whole business itself was a conspiracy. It may not be the conspiracy to mix the noxious substance but the fact of the matter is that in order to succeed in the business which itself was a conspiracy they mixed or allowed to be mixed methanol and used it so freely that ultimately 31 persons lost their lives.”

The court also observed:

“Notably, no less than 627 questions/circumstances were put to A10 and A11 each under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This Court has clarified on numerous occasions that in law, the accused has a duty to furnish some explanation of an incriminating circumstance, with the prosecution crossing the threshold of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, no explanation, much less, a plausible one, is put forth. In the event of complete denial or silence, the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against the accused.”

The court further stated:

“Therefore, the argument on behalf of the appellants that the offence under Section 57(A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act is not attributable to them has to be rejected.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Individuals involved in the supply chain of illicit liquor can be held liable for conspiracy and offenses under the IPC and Abkari Act.
• Knowledge of the harmful nature of a substance and its intended illegal use is a critical factor in establishing criminal liability.
• Falsification of records and attempts to destroy evidence can be used against the accused.
• The burden of proof under Section 57A(5) of the Abkari Act is on the accused to prove they did not commit the offense.
• The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts unless they are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The bail granted to A11 (Roy) was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the concerned court forthwith.
• The Registry was directed to place a copy of the judgment before the Chief Justice of India for consideration and appropriate directions regarding the practice of not placing depositions of material witnesses on record.
• The court suggested amendments to Order XX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, to include soft copies of original records and to extend this practice to cases where leave is granted against an order of acquittal or conviction.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that individuals who conspire to supply harmful substances, knowing their illegal use, can be held liable for the resulting harm under the IPC and the Abkari Act. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the burden of proof under Section 57A(5) of the Abkari Act is on the accused, and that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts unless they are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence.

There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of A10 and A11, affirming the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. The court found sufficient evidence to establish their involvement in a criminal conspiracy to mix and sell spurious liquor, which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. The judgment underscores the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions in the illicit liquor trade and reinforces the legal principles that govern such cases. The appeal of A10 was abated due to his death, while the appeal of A11 was dismissed.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Conspiracy, Spurious Liquor, Abkari Act, Section 302 IPC, Section 120B IPC, Section 57A Abkari Act, Section 55 Abkari Act

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Abkari Act

Child Categories: Section 57A, Abkari Act, Section 55, Abkari Act

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Sajeev vs. State of Kerala case?
A: The main issue was whether the accused, A10 and A11, were guilty of criminal conspiracy and offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Abkari Act for their involvement in the sale of spurious liquor that caused deaths and injuries.

Q: What is the Abkari Act?
A: The Abkari Act is a law that regulates the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol in certain Indian states. It includes provisions for offenses related to adulteration and illegal sale of liquor.

Q: What is Section 57A of the Abkari Act?
A: Section 57A of the Abkari Act deals with the adulteration of liquor with noxious substances. It imposes penalties on anyone who mixes or permits the mixing of harmful substances with liquor, especially if it causes grievous hurt or death.

Q: What is criminal conspiracy?
A: Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. It is a separate offense from the actual commission of the crime.

Q: What does the judgment mean for people involved in the liquor business?
A: The judgment makes it clear that anyone involved in the illegal supply chain of liquor, especially those who know they are supplying harmful substances, can be held criminally liable for the consequences.

Q: What was the role of the accused in this case?
A: The accused, A10 and A11, were found to have conspired with A1 to supply methyl alcohol, a harmful substance, knowing it would be mixed with liquor and sold illegally. They were also found to have falsified records and attempted to destroy evidence.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision?
A: The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the legal principles that hold individuals accountable for their actions in the illicit liquor trade and sends a strong message against the production and sale of spurious liquor.