The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction and life sentence of appellants involved in a deadly conspiracy related to liquor poisoning. The Court, in its judgment, relied on the landmark case of State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini, establishing the essential elements required to prove a case of criminal conspiracy. The Court reiterated the principle that all conspirators are liable for offences committed individually, emphasizing the joint responsibility even if some haven't actively participated in the commission of those offences.
Brief Facts of the Case:
An incident in 2003 resulted in the deaths of seven individuals, blinding of eleven, and injured to over 40 people due to alcohol poisoning. The conspiracy involved the illicit mixing of methyl alcohol with spirit, orchestrated by individuals identified as A1 (short for ‘Accused No. 1’), A3, A10, and A11, with the aim of unlawful gains through an outlet operated by A1. The trial court convicted them in 2004 and this decision was upheld by the High Court. A1's Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court was dismissed in 2016, and subsequently, appeals were filed by A10 and A11.
Contentions of the Parties:
Prosecution's Arguments:
- The prosecution argued that A1 played a central role in the illicit liquor trade, with the appellants, A10 and A11, actively involved in the criminal conspiracy. The prosecution established that methyl alcohol was stored at A1's residence, and A11, through RR Distributors, procured Biosole with 100% methyl alcohol, allegedly sold to various entities. However, the alleged buyers denied any such transactions.
- The prosecution referred to the case of State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini to outline the essential elements of criminal conspiracy, emphasizing the need for an agreement for an illegal act, intent to commit a crime, and reliance on inferred circumstances and conduct of the accused. It asserted that all conspirators, including A10 and A11, were jointly responsible for the offences committed, even if some did not actively participate.
- The prosecution highlighted the destruction of evidence by A11, emphasizing its role in supporting the larger narrative of the conspiracy. Citing precedents like State of Haryana v. Krishan, it argued that the destruction of evidence can link accused parties to larger conspiracies.
- The prosecution also addressed the convictions under the Abkari Act, asserting that Section 57(A)(1) extends to anyone mixing noxious substances likely to endanger human life with liquor. It underscored the burden of proof on the accused under this section.
Defense's Counterarguments:
- The defense, representing A10 and A11, contested the prosecution's case. They argued that the transactions reflected in the register of RR Distributors were fictitious, and there was no concrete evidence linking them to the distribution of methyl alcohol. The alleged buyers denied any knowledge or receipt of such transactions.
- The defense challenged the prosecution's interpretation of Section 57(A)(1) of the Abkari Act, contending that it did not apply to their clients as they were not license holders. They sought to establish that the burden of proof under this section was wrongly placed on A10 and A11.
- Furthermore, the defense questioned the reliance on the destruction of evidence, arguing that it did not conclusively link A11 to the larger conspiracy. They emphasized the lack of direct evidence and maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of criminal conspiracy.
Observations by the Court:
Examining the cause of death as poisoning caused by methyl alcohol, the Supreme Court affirmed A1's role in the illicit liquor trade. Witness testimonies and evidence indicated that the appellants were familiar with A1, methyl alcohol was stored at A1's residence, and A11, through RR Distributors, procured Biosole with 100% methyl alcohol, allegedly sold to various entities. However, alleged buyers denied any such transactions.
The Court referred to State v. Nalini to outline the essential elements of criminal conspiracy, emphasizing the need for an agreement for an illegal act, intent to commit a crime, and reliance on inferred circumstances and conduct of the accused. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the prosecution had established the offence of criminal conspiracy of A10 and A11 with A1.
This landmark case played a pivotal role in shaping the Supreme Court's understanding of criminal conspiracy. The Court laid down essential ingredients for constituting a criminal conspiracy:
- Agreement for Illegal Act or Legal Act by Illegal Means: Conspiracy involves two or more persons agreeing to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
- Intent to Commit a Crime: The offence of criminal conspiracy requires not just intent but an intention to commit a crime, aligning with persons sharing the same intention.
- Reliance on Inferred Circumstances and Conduct: Conspiracy is often established through inferred circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
The Court in this case emphasized that conspirators committing offences individually, in pursuance of the agreement, are all liable for those offences, even if some did not actively participate.
In Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court had emphasized the importance of proving an agreement between parties to establish a conspiracy. The Court held that the offence of criminal conspiracy is of joint responsibility, making all conspirators liable for the acts committed as a result of the conspiracy.
Addressing the destruction of evidence by A11, the Supreme Court highlighted its role in supporting the prosecution's narrative. Citing State of Haryana v. Krishan, the Court emphasized how the destruction of evidence can link accused parties to larger conspiracies. The accused's failure to justify incriminating circumstances allowed the Court to draw adverse inferences.
Beyond offences under the IPC, the accused were convicted under provisions of the Abkari Act. Referring to Chandran v. State of Kerala, the Court clarified that Section 57(A)(1) of the Abkari Act extends to anyone mixing noxious substances likely to endanger human life with liquor. The burden of proof on the accused under this section was constitutionally upheld.
Decision of the Court:
In conclusion, the Court affirmed the involvement of the accused in the sale and mixing of methyl alcohol with spirit as part of the conspiracy, resulting in deaths and injuries. The convictions of A10 and A11 under Sections 302, 307, 326 of the IPC, and 57(A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act were upheld.
Case Name: Sajeev vs. State of Kerala
Coram: Hon’ble Justices Sanjay Karol and Abhay S. Oka
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2011
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 862 SC
Advocates of the Appellant: Renjith B. Marar Lakshmi N. Kaimal Santhosh M Jose Arun Poomulli Vishnu Pazhanganat Rajkumar P Abhijith Sreekumar Preetha S. Chandran Davesh Kumar Sharma Ashu Jain R Basant M Gireesh Kumar Ankur Kulkarni Vijay Kumar Gaurav Agrawal
Advocates of the Respondent: Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Subhash Chandran K.R., and Ashly Harshad
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
