Summary
The Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions arising from a methanol liquor tragedy. Procurement, delivery, false sale records and concealment established the appellants’ knowing participation in the conspiracy. Roy’s appeal was dismissed and his bail cancelled. After learning of Sajeev’s death, the Court recorded that his appeal against conviction had abated. It also suggested changes to the procedure for obtaining criminal appeal records.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established knowing participation in the conspiracy to supply poisonous liquor.
- Whether absence of proof that the appellants personally mixed the methanol excluded liability under the Abkari Act.
- How criminal appeal records could be made available promptly to the Court and counsel.
Provisions considered
- Sections 120A, 120B, 302, 307 and 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860The procurement and supply evidence, fictitious records and subsequent conduct established conspiracy and supported the convictions for the resulting deaths and injuries. (¶¶ 18–41, 49–51)
- Sections 57A(1)(ii), 57A(5)(a), 55(a), (h), (i) and 3(10), Abkari Act, 1 of 1077The Court rejected the personal-mixing and licence-holder restrictions urged by the appellants; knowing supply of the poisonous liquor attracted the provisions. (¶ 42–49)
- Sections 6 and 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Connected conduct, presence, knowledge and falsification formed relevant evidence supporting the conspiracy finding. (¶ 46)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Only after the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt did the absence of a plausible explanation support an adverse inference. (¶ 41)
- Order XX, Rule 5(2) and (3), Supreme Court Rules, 2013The Court considered the existing record-requisition procedure and suggested amendments for electronic records, directing placement before the Chief Justice for consideration. (¶ 56–59)
Held
- Credible injured-witness testimony, corroborated delivery evidence, procurement of methanol, fictitious onward sales and evidence of concealment established the criminal agreement and the appellants’ knowing participation. (¶ 18–40)
- Conspiracy may be inferred from proved circumstances and conduct because direct evidence of the agreement is rarely available. Joint responsibility requires the necessary connection between the acts and the agreed unlawful object. (¶ 35–37)
- A hostile witness’s testimony is not wholly erased; dependable portions may be relied upon after careful scrutiny. The relevant identification evidence remained usable here. (¶ 19)
- Section 57A is not confined to licence holders or persons proved to have physically mixed the poison. The statutory language and the proved knowing participation defeated those defences. (¶ 42–45)
- There was no perversity or exclusion of vital exculpatory evidence warranting interference with the concurrent convictions. Roy’s appeal failed; Sajeev’s appeal against conviction abated upon his death. (¶ 49–55)
- Electronic requisition and access to lower-court records were proposed to avoid adjournments. The proposals were referred for consideration and did not themselves amend the Rules. (¶ 56–59)
Result
Roy’s appeal dismissed, bail cancelled and immediate surrender directed. Sajeev’s appeal against conviction recorded as abated. Registry directed to place the proposed procedural changes before the Chief Justice of India; pending applications disposed of.