Supreme Court upholds conviction and life sentence in deadly liquor poisoning conspiracy: Sajeev v. State of Kerala

Accident – Death – Obituary News : The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction and life sentence of appellants involved in a deadly conspiracy of liquor poisoning. The Court relied on the landmark case of State v. Nalini to lay down the essential constituents for proving a case of criminal conspiracy. It reaffirmed that “Where in pursuance of the agreement, the conspirators commit offenses individually, all of them will be liable for such offenses even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offenses.”

In a harrowing incident that took place back in 2003, a deadly conspiracy resulted in the deaths of seven innocent individuals, leaving 11 blinded and more than 40 others with varying degrees of injuries due to alcohol poisoning. The perpetrators, identified as A1, A3, A10, and A11, conspired to mix methyl alcohol with spirit for unlawful gain through an outlet operated by A1.

The trial court convicted them in 2004, a decision that was also upheld by the Kerala High Court. A1 had previously filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Apex Court, which was dismissed in 2016. Presently, appeals were filed by A10 and A11 before the Supreme Court.

The Court, after examining the testimonies of witnesses, was convinced that there was sufficient evidence for establishing a criminal conspiracy. The Court pointed out that the destruction of evidence can link the accused to a larger conspiracy and further highlighted that the failure of the accused to justify incriminating circumstances can lead the court to draw adverse inferences against them.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Abhay S. Oka was hearing an appeal against the Kerala High Court judgment, which confirmed the conviction of appellants under Sections 302, 307, and 326 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 55(a), (h), (i) and Section 57 (A) (1) (ii) of the Abkari Act.

The Court first noted that the cause of death for the victims was confirmed as poisoning caused by methyl alcohol, and the courts had affirmed A1’s role in the illicit liquor trade. After a comprehensive examination of witness testimonies, the court found that the appellants were familiar with A1, and methyl alcohol was allegedly stored at A1’s residence.

The court underscored that the appellant (A11), through RR Distributors, procured Biosole with 100% methyl alcohol, which was purportedly sold to various entities. However, alleged buyers denied any such transactions or receipt of methyl alcohol-containing cans. Therefore, the court observed that the transactions reflected in the register of RR distributors were fictitious and fabricated.

The court meticulously examined the depositions to determine the sufficiency of evidence to establish a conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It referred to the landmark case of State v. Nalini & Ors., summarizing the essential ingredients for constituting a criminal conspiracy. These ingredients include an agreement for an illegal act or legal act by illegal means, intent to commit a crime, reliance on inferred circumstances and conduct of the accused, and joint responsibility in offenses.

Applying these principles to the facts, the court concluded that the appellants had a known association with A1, visited his residence in the company of other accused individuals, and were involved in the supply and storage of harmful methyl alcohol. Moreover, the appellant (A11) was actively involved in the management of RR Distributors and fabricated records of methyl alcohol sales. Therefore, the court concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the offense of criminal conspiracy of A10 and A11 with A1.

The court also addressed the issue of destruction of evidence by the appellant (A11). It emphasized that this act supported the prosecution’s narrative about his attempt to eliminate incriminating material connecting them to the crime. Citing the State of Haryana v. Krishan case, the court underlined how the destruction of evidence can link accused parties to larger conspiracies. The Court was of the view that the discovery of burnt plastic residue and methyl alcohol in soil samples from the appellant’s residence connected the materials to the incident in question.

Furthermore, the court highlighted the accused’s duty to explain incriminating circumstances. In this case, the appellant failed to justify these incriminating circumstances, leading the court to draw adverse inferences against them.

In addition to offenses under the Penal Code, the accused were also convicted under provisions of the Abkari Act. The court elucidated 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.

The ruling further addressed the issue of conspiracy and mens rea under Section 57A of the Abkari Act, reaffirming the importance of active involvement in the act of mixing harmful substances. The court held that the testimonies and evidence pointed to the appellant’s presence at the scene, their knowledge of the poisonous nature of the substance they supplied, and A11’s fabrication of records concerning the distribution of the prohibited substance.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of appellants A10 and A11 for their involvement in a deadly conspiracy of liquor poisoning. The Court relied on the landmark case of State v. Nalini to establish the essential constituents for proving a case of criminal conspiracy. The court’s examination of witness testimonies and evidence led to the conclusion that the appellants had actively participated in the conspiracy and were liable for the offenses committed. The Court also emphasized the significance of the destruction of evidence and the duty of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances. Finally, the Court addressed the applicability of provisions under the Abkari Act and upheld the conviction of the appellants under relevant sections..