State Of Haryana vs Krishan

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 847 OF 2006

STATE OF HARYANA .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KRISHAN & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

In December, 1980, a very brazen, bizarre and outlandish

incident took place, commonly known as ‘hooch tragedy’. The

deleterious consequence was that 36 persons who had

purchased liquor from a licensed vend in Village Kalanwali,

District Sirsa, Haryana lost their lives after consuming the same.

Another 44 persons who too had purchased the liquor from the

same shop and consumed that liquor lost their eye-sight

permanently. Numbers of FIRs were registered in which the Signature Not Verified

investigation was carried out by the police. All these cases were Digitally signed by PARVEEN KUMAR Date: 2017.06.29 16:57:44 IST Reason:

clubbed together for the purpose of trial. Orders of consolidation

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 1 of 30 of trials of these FIRs were passed by the Session Judge

resulting into a joint trial in which 48 persons were arrayed as

accused. This joint trial culminated into passing of judgment by

the Session Judge dated August 18, 2000. It resulted into

conviction of only two accused persons, namely, Krishan and

Som Nath, for the offences under Section 302 IPC read with

Section 120B IPC who were directed to undergo imprisonment for

life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each. They were also

convicted for offence under Section 328 IPC read with Section

120B IPC for which they were to suffer imprisonment for a term of

5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each. Conviction against these

two persons were also recorded under Section 61(1)(a) of the

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for which sentence of six months

rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed on the

two convicts. All the sentences were to run concurrently. It

appears that case against two persons had abated because of

their demise during trial. Apart from these accused persons, all

other accused persons were acquitted.

2) The two convicts (respondents herein) challenged the order of

their conviction by filing appeal in the High Court. This appeal

has been allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated May 09,

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 2 of 30 2006. The High Court has also indicted the appellant/State of

Haryana for its negligence which led to the said tragedy and has

directed the State to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to

the heirs of 36 persons who died after consuming the liquor and

pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to those persons who are

rendered blind by consuming a spurious liquor. State of Haryana

is in appeal questioning the aforesaid outcome of the appeals

which were filed by the respondents herein. Before coming to the

reasons which weighed with the High Court acquitting the

respondents, certain developments which took place during the

pendency of the appeal filed by the respondents in the High Court

need a mention at this stage.

3) As pointed out above, only two persons were convicted and

others acquitted. Neither State nor any of the aggrieved persons

challenged the acquittal of those accused. Appeal was only filed

by the respondents challenging their conviction. With this, appeal

came up for admission before the Division Bench of the High

Court. It passed the order dated May 9, 2001 making prima facie

observation to the effect that acquittal of other persons was not

called for and the matter required reconsideration by the High

Court. Accordingly, the Advocate General, Haryana was directed

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 3 of 30 to file an application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of

those persons. That order was challenged by filing special leave

petition in this Court in which initially the notice was issued and

stay was granted in respect of the aforesaid order of the High

Court. Ultimately, the order dated May 9, 2001 passed by the

High Court directing the State to file application for leave to

appeal against the acquittal of persons was set aside by this

Court on November 13, 2002. In the meantime, the State

Government had filed application for leave to defend in the High

Court in which leave had been granted and the case was

assigned Criminal Appeal No. 348-DBA of 2001. Following the

aforesaid order dated November 13, 2002 of this Court, said

appeal was dismissed by the High Court on February 17, 2003.

In these circumstances, the High Court was left with the Criminal

Appeal filed by respondents herein which was to be dealt with by

the Court. This appeal took yet another turn. On February 23,

2005, when it came up before the Division Bench of the High

Court, it took note of observations made by the trial court in its

judgment wherein trial court had castigated the State

instrumentality as well and observed that its negligence had also

contributed to the unfortunate incident. Taking note thereof, the

Division Bench vide its order dated February 23, 2005 framed the

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 4 of 30 following questions for decision by a Larger Bench.

“(1) How the investigation is to be conducted in such like cases where number of persons die and become disabled?

(2) Whether the State is liable to pay compensation to the families of the victims, if the accused are acquitted on account of faulty investigation and intricacies of law?”

4) The matter was referred to the Full Bench. However, while

dealing with the aforesaid reference, the Full Bench felt that for

giving effective answer to the aforesaid questions, main appeal

needed to be heard in the first instance and this necessity was

reflected in the order passed by it. Having regard to that order of

the Full Bench, the Chief Justice of the High Court directed that

criminal appeal be also listed before the Full Bench so that the

appeal itself along with the aforesaid two questions referred to the

Full Bench is decided by it. That is how the Full Bench of the

High Court while deciding the appeal of the respondents herein

also dealt with the aforesaid two issues and awarded the

compensation to the families of the victims.

5) Insofar as order of the High Court directing payment of

compensation is concerned, when this matter came up on

July 13, 2012, a statement was made by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant State that the said amount had

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 5 of 30 already been deposited by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa on

October 23, 2011 as per the directions of the High Court. After

recording the aforesaid statement, this Court directed that the

aforesaid amount be released in favour of the victims or legal

heirs of the victims after due verification.

6) When the present appeal came up for hearing before us, we were

informed that the said amount already stands disbursed.

Because of this development, when the amount is already paid to

the victims or their families, this Court expressed that there was

no question of recovering the said amount now, more particularly,

when the victims or their family members who have been paid

compensation have not been impleaded as parties before this

Court. Learned counsel for the State could not dispute the

aforesaid position. As a result, this Court is not interfering with

the directions pertaining to payment of compensation contained in

the impugned judgment. In this conspectus, both the parties

argued the case limited to the acquittal of respondents by the

High Court.

7) The case of the prosecution, as noted by the High Court, can be

recapitulated at this stage, as there was no dispute that there is

no error in recording the prosecution case.

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 6 of 30 On December 02, 1980, Om Prakash son of Puran Chand

resident of Mandi Kalanwali had while, reporting about the death

of his father Puran Chand, informed the police that in deference

to the wishes of his father, he had purchased a pint of country

liquor from the local liquor vend on December 1, 1980. The pint

had been sold to him by Surender Pal for Rs.6.50. Om Prakash

had then handed over the liquor to his father Puran Chand, who

had consumed it in his presence and retired for the night in the

Chaubara of his house. In the morning, at about 7.00 a.m. Puran

Chand had complained of some restlessness, which was

accompanied by a continuous and irresistible desire to vomit.

Om Prakash had consequently sought the services of Dr. Vijay

Kumar PW3, who had prescribed and administered the medicine

but without much relief. When the condition of Puran Chand

deteriorated, he was shifted to Civil Dispensary at Kalanwali but

the efforts made by the Medical Officer to save him failed and he

died at 2.30 p.m. on December 2, 1980. According to Om

Prakash, the death of his father was definitely as a result of

consumption of spurious liquor sold by the local liquor contractor

and consequently FIR No. 211 dated December 2, 1980 was

registered at Police Station Kalanwali.

ASI Umed Singh initiated the inquest proceedings and

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 7 of 30 forwarded the dead body to the Civil Hospital, Sirsa for autopsy.

He also took into possession the pint which still contained a few

drops of liquor. In the meantime, the police received information

about Moola Ram and Rura Ram having been admitted in Civil

Dispensary, Kalanwali in a precarious condition. According to the

inputs, these two persons had also purchased liquor from the

same vend on December 1, 1980. During the investigation, the

police collected information that Som Nath son of Lachhu Ram,

Krishan son of Ram Chander, Dwarka Dass son of Lal Chand,

Gajjan Singh son of Dalip Singh, Jagdish son of Kaur Chand,

Ram Bhaj son of Hari Ram, Jagdish alias D.C. son of Brij Lal,

Surenderpal son of Desh Raj, Moti son of Brij Lal and Desh Raj

son of Duli Chand had in conspiracy with each other prepared

spurious liquor as per the directions of Lal Chand son of Brahma

Mal and Lachhu son of Lal Chand from spirit which was labelled

as poison and unfit for human consumption. This was put into

bottles and thereafter put up for public sale. In all, the spurious

liquor supplied by the liquor vend at Kalanwali was stated to have

led to the deaths of 36 persons, namely, Puran Singh, Amarjit

Singh, Madan Lal, Baja Ram, Budh Ram, Ved Prakash son of

Mulakh Raj, Madan Lal, Jagwant Singh, Net Ram, Panna Lal,

Darshan Singh, Nathu Ram, Labh Singh, Gurdial Singh, Mulla

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 8 of 30 Ram, Rura Ram, Tara Chand, Hardatt Singh, Pirthvi Chand,

Sahab Singh, Mohan Lal, Hanuman, Darbara Singh, Darshan

Singh, Sukhdev Singh son of Hazur Singh, Sukhdev Singh son of

Hari Singh, Mita Singh, Balwant Singh, Naib Singh, Bachitar

Singh, Ved Prakash son of Mam Chand, Major Singh, Niranjan

Singh, Bhola Singh, Kartar Singh, Ved Prakash son of Madan Lal,

Nand Singh son of Kunda Singh and Balbir Singh son of Gurdial

Singh had between December 1, 1980 and December 4, 1980

suffered from the ill effects of poisonous liquor and had lost their

lives. It also transpired that owing to the poison contained in the

liquor that was sold from the liquor vends of the respondents,

namely, Krishan son of Ram Chander and Som Nath son of

Lachhu Ram, who were admittedly licensed holders of the vend,

43 persons, namely, Sampuran Singh son of Harnam Singh,

Kartar Singh, Sahab Ram, Hans Raj, Tek Chand, Naib Singh,

Sampuran Singh son of Dal Singh, Waryam Singh, Gurdev Singh,

Boota Singh, Jaswant Singh, Surjit Singh, Darshan Singh, Khem

Chand, Gurtej Singh, Babu Ram, Mithu Singh, Babu Ram son of

Jug Lal, Gian Chand, Kaur Singh, Lila Ram, Sher Singh, Jorr

Singh, Gurnam Singh, Pyare Lal, Harphul, Harnek Singh, Surjit

Singh son of Buggar, Gurcharan Singh, Harnek son of Jang

Singh, Shyam Singh, Mukhtiar Singh son of Chanan, Mukhtiar

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 9 of 30 Singh son of Jagir Singh, Mohinder Singh, Om Prakash, Hari

Singh, Gurcharan alias Guddu, Banta Singh, Makhan Lal, Kartar

Singh, Buggar Singh, Charan Dass, Sham sunder and Lila Singh

son of Pritam Singh had lost their vision. Apart from FIR No.211,

which was registered in Police Station Baragudha and upon

completion of the investigations 48 persons were sent up to stand

their trial and proceeded against as indicated hereinbefore.

After commitment, the charges were framed against them

as indicated hereinbefore to which the accused pleaded not guilty

whereupon the prosecution was called to lead evidence in

support of this case.

In all prosecution examined 291 witnesses. Out of them, 28

were doctors, who had either performed post mortem on the dead

bodies or medico legally examined the persons. Majority of the

remaining witnesses examined were the relations of the victims

while some of these were the police officials, who were at various

stages associated with the investigation of the case.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence, only the

statements of Som Nath, Dwarka Dass, Gajjan Singh, Jagdish

son of Brij Lal, Moti Ram, Mukhtiar Singh, Sewa Singh, Krishan,

Jagdish Rai son of Kaur Chand and Labha Chand were recorded

in order to obtain their explanation regarding the incriminating

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 10 of 30 circumstances appearing in evidence against them. All of them

pleaded innocence and asserted that they had been falsely

implicated in the case.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa did not record the

statements of the remaining accused as according to him no

incriminating fact had appeared in the prosecution evidence

about their involvement. In defence, 14 witnesses were

examined by the accused.

The trial court after hearing arguments had come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case

only against Krishan and Som Nath and convicted and sentenced

them as indicated hereinbefore whereas the remaining accused

were acquitted of the charge framed against them.

8) As is already observed, both the respondents were convicted by

the trial court for offences under Sections 302 IPC as well as 328

IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC as well. Questioning this

basis of conviction, counsel for the respondents had argued

before the High Court that there was no evidence of conspiracy

on the basis whereof the respondents could be convicted under

Section 120B IPC. It was further argued that once it is found that

conviction under Section 120B IPC is unsustainable, necessary

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 11 of 30 consequences thereof would be that there was no substantive

charge under Section 302 IPC framed against the convicted

persons nor there was any evidence of their complicity in relation

to this. According to the counsel for the respondents, further

consequence was that charge as framed against the respondents

were not sustainable inasmuch as the trial court was required to

frame separate charges in each of the murders that are stated to

have been committed by the respondents in view of the

provisions of Sections 218 and 226 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.P.C.). It was also argued that even on merits, the

conviction against the respondents could not be sustained in the

absence of any material on record depicting their culpability in law

as no material was proved to show that respondents were in any

way connected with the preparation and sale of spurious liquor.

Likewise, there was no evidence to prove that these two

respondents had any knowledge about liquor being spurious or

that they were responsible for preparing the spurious liquor for

sale. It was also argued that there is no material on record to

show that methanol which was used to adulterate the liquor had

been provided to the persons working at the liquor vend by or

with the consent of the respondents and there is no evidence

available on the file from which the complicity of the respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 12 of 30 could be inferred in the preparation and sale of spurious liquor. It

was also submitted that in the case of none of the victims had,

the investigating agency, collected evidence to prove that that the

respondents had directed their Karindas to adulterate the liquor

and in the absence of this no tacit or implied consent for the sale

of liquor can be attributed to them and, therefore, the charge

under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. Even otherwise,

there is no proof of the fact that any of the deceased or the

persons who lost their vision had actually consumed liquor sold to

them from any of the liquor vends that belonged to the

respondents and, therefore, the findings of the trial court cannot

be sustained.

9) The High Court while allowing the appeal of the respondents

herein accepted most of the aforesaid submissions of their

counsel. It found that the trial court had convicted the

respondents as they were the contractors who had been given

the licence to run country liquor vend at Kalanwali for the year

1980-1981. The accusation of the prosecution was that they had

sold adulterated alcohol containing methanol poison and, thus,

they committed an act so imminently dangerous that it must in all

probability cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 13 of 30 cause death and, in fact, it did result in the death of so many

persons. The trial court had also observed that the respondents

were in the field of sale of alcohol since long and they definitely

had the knowledge of toxicity of methanol poison. They also had

a definite knowledge that sale of such liquor would cause

methanol poisoning to the consumers and the possible result

would be death or bodily injury. On this basis, invoking the

provisions of Section 300 ‘fourthly’ of IPC and the ratio of this

Court in Joseph Kurian Philip Jose v. State of Kerala, (1994) 6

SCC 535, the respondents were convicted. According to the High

Court, this was hardly any justifiable reason for convicting the

respondents. The High Court discarded the aforesaid conclusion

of the trial court as according to it, no evidence was produced to

show that the victims died after consuming liquor from the bottles

that have been purchased by the deceased, even though it was

proved on record that cause of death was the consumption of

methyl alcohol which was present in the viscera taken from the

bodies of the deceased.

10) To put it succinctly, as per the High Court, though the cause of

death was established, namely, consumption of methyl alcohol,

but no connection was established by the prosecution of

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 14 of 30 consuming the said alcohol by the deceased and other victims

from the bottles that had been purchased by the victims from the

vends of the respondents. Relevant portion of the discussion

contained in the judgment of the High Court, highlighting the

aforesaid aspect is reproduced below:

“The reasoning put forth by the trial Court cannot be faulted with if there is material on the record in support of the same. The prosecution, in our opinion, was duty bound to prove:-

(a) that the deaths/loss of vision was due to the presence of methyl alcohol in the bodies of the victims;

(b) that this methyl alcohol was traceable to the contents of a bottle of liquor bought from the liquor vend of the appellants; and

(c) that the deleterious ingredient was introduced in the bottle by the employees of the appellants on their instructions.

While there is oral and expert evidence available to prove that methyl alcohol was present in the viscera taken from the bodies of the deceased during the post mortem yet there is no material on the record to prove that the methyl alcohol which was found in the viscera was consumed from the bottles that had been purchased by the deceased or some one known to them from the liquor vends of the appellants. In an answer to a categorical question put up by us, the learned Advocate General, has not been able to pin point any evidence to prove that a sample from the container in which the liquor was purchased from the vend of the two appellants was also sent to the Forensic Expert to prove that methyl alcohol found in the body of any one of the deceased was possibly ingested on account of the same having been consumed from the aforesaid bottle. Even in relation to the cases where the victims have lost their vision, there is no evidence to connect the methyl alcohol that is

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 15 of 30 stated to be responsible for the blindings with the bottles which have been purchased from the liquor vends of the appellants. While there is no doubt that the investigating agency had recovered a large number of bottles which had been put in the canal by the employees of the appellants to cover up their default of selling liquor from the vend other than country made liquor i.e. Santra, Kesar Kasturi, Jagadhari No. 1 prepared by the distilleries in contravention of the terms of the licence yet the contents of none of these bottles were got sampled for proving that they contained methyl alcohol which was ultimately found to be injurious to the health of the consumers. We are afraid that the Investigating Officer in this case was so overwhelmed by the magnitude of the tragedy that he forgot to collect the basic evidence which would be required to bring home the charge against the culprits who were responsible for the tragedy. It is unfortunate that at no level of the State administration any one deemed it appropriate to have even an enquiry conducted into the circumstances which led to the tragedy for pin-pointing the short comings in the system which permitted sale of spurious liquor from licensed liquor vend. No effort was made to find out how and why such a lapse could occur in relation to a subject which provides at least 1000 crores of revenue annually by way of excise tax to the State Government.

Although it might not have occurred to an Assistant Sub Inspector that the case would also involve the violation of the provisions of the 1954 Act inasmuch as according to the 1954 Act the liquor would fall within the term “food” and the sale of spurious liquor would be punishable for imprisonment for life yet even the supervisory officers dealing with the incident seem to be blissful ignorant of their obligations to ensure that all loop holes are identified so as to plug the same in order to prevent the recurrence of a tragedy of this magnitude. The political masters as well as the civil servants responsible for running the administration were satisfied with doing what appears to be a cover up job and this approach of theirs stood in the way of collection of adequate evidence required to prove the case against the persons responsible for the perpetration of the crime. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the State has not been able to pin point the evidence which would fasten to the appellants the knowledge of the fact that the liquor which was

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 16 of 30 being sold out at their licensed vend contained methyl alcohol as also on account of the fact that there is no evidence to prove that the remanents of the bottled which are alleged to have been brought from the liquor vend contained traces of methyl alcohol and in the absence of any proof to show that the appellants shared with their employees the intention to prepare spurious liquor with the help of methyl alcohol it would not be possible for us to uphold the conviction of the appellants.”

11) In fact, in the process, the High Court indicted the State

authorities in not discharging their duties properly and made the

adverse comments qua the State administration.

12) Another reason given by the High Court is that except the two

respondents, all other accused persons were acquitted by the trial

court under Section 120B of IPC and no appeal was filed by the

State to challenge this acquittal. It had inevitable consequence of

upsetting the conviction of the respondents as well upon whom

criminal liability was sought to be fastened with the help of

Section 120B of IPC. To put it otherwise, the High Court

concluded that there cannot be charge of criminal conspiracy

under Section 120B of IPC in respect of two persons qua the

respondents when others stood acquitted meaning thereby

charge of conspiracy of the respondents along with other accused

persons was not proved. High Court referred to the judgment of

this Court in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326, in

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 17 of 30 support of this conclusion.

13) It is clear from the above that though there is no dispute that

hundreds of the people had consumed the poisonous liquor and

scores of them had died and many more were rendered

permanently blind, the factor which has weighed in acquitting the

respondents is that there is no evidence to connect the

consumption of methyl alcohol by the victims with the

respondents. Therefore, it is required to be seen as to whether

this finding of the High Court of lack of evidence connecting the

accused persons with the tragedy is correct or not.

14) In the first instance, we would like to reiterate the evidence about

the cause of death, on which there is no dispute. The unfortunate

tragedy, which came to be known as ‘Kalanwali Hooch Tragedy’,

saw the messenger of death taking away the lives of as many as

44 unfortunate persons who fell prey to it by consuming

poisonous liquor. 36 persons, though were spared the extreme

consequence of death, were still inflicted with a very serious

consequence, as losing the eye-sight permanently for the rest of

the life makes the life difficult and challenging in many ways. This

gruesome occurrence, where so many persons became the

victims, happened was proximate to the place where vends of

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 18 of 30 respondents are situate. Post mortem of the deceased persons

were conducted which led to a common finding, namely, methyl

was found in the viscera of the dead bodies and the cause of

death was consumption of alcohol containing methyl. Likewise,

those who lost their vision were also medically examined. All the

Doctors who examined these persons arrived express opinion,

namely, the damage to the vision of their eyes was the direct

result of intake of methyl alcohol. These Doctors were more than

25 in number who deposed in the Court and their conclusion was

identical, which cannot be a mere coincidence. It can be,

therefore, unhesitatingly concluded that cause of death or loss of

eye-sight is the result of consuming spurious liquor. There is also

sufficient evidence on record to believe that many people had

been rushed to the different hospitals with symptoms of alcoholic

poisoning out of whom 36 persons had lost their lives and 44

others had rendered permanently blind. The report of the

Chemical Examiner submitted in each case of death was the

direct result of consumption of methyl alcohol which had caused

methanol poison. There is impeccable and unshaking evidence

in the form of depositions of all those doctors who had conducted

autopsy on the bodies of the deceased and who had examined

those who lost their eye-sight. They have appeared in the

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 19 of 30 witness box and testified to the aforesaid effect which is

supported by medical records. This was a kind of maelstrom, a

whirlpool, wherein 36 persons drowned in spurious liquor. Other

44 persons, though could be rescued from fatality, but lost their

most vital limbs i.e. the eye-sight.

15) With this, we come to the core issue, which is the bone of

contention, as to whether the respondents were responsible for

the same?

16) As pointed out above, in the opinion of the High Court, no

evidence is led to connect the respondents with the sale of

spurious liquor. We do not agree with the said observation and

the conclusion of the High Court on that basis. It has come on

record, and is duly recorded by the trial court in the impugned

judgment, that with the spread of news that so many persons

were losing their lives or eye-sight after consuming the poisonous

liquor adulterated with methyl alcohol containing methanol

poison, ASI Umed Singh landed at the Civil Dispensary of

Kalanwali on December 2, 1980 and recorded the statement of

Om Prakash, who had lost his father Puran Chand just then as a

result of the consumption of adulterated liquor purchased by him

from the liquor vend of Krishan and Som Nath located in the area

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 20 of 30 of Kalanwali. ASI Umed Singh had barely put his pen down after

recording the statement of Om Prakash that more and more

patients with identical symptoms started reporting in different

hospitals of the town. All these persons had, immediately after

suffering the aforesaid consequence of consuming liquor, made a

specific and categorical statement that they had purchased the

liquor from the vends of the respondents. Even those who lost

lives, their immediate near relations had informed to the same

effect. 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.

17) That apart, the prosecution also led the evidence to the effect that

two respondents herein were given the licence for running liquor

vends in Kalanwali town at the relevant time. This fact is not

disputed by the respondents. Another shocking fact which was

brought on record, and which is taken very lightly by the High

Court, is that when this tragedy struck and was given wide

coverage by the Media, the respondents and their staff tried to

destroy the evidence in the form of other bottles which were lying

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 21 of 30 in the stock/vends by throwing them away in the river/canal.

Though the High Court has accepted this fact, but same is

brushed aside with the observation that no attempt was made to

get the same tested. 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.

18) Evidence is also produced to the effect that 2560 pints of liquor

were seized by the police from the liquor vends between 3 rd and

5th of December, 1980. A bottle containing 50 mls of liquor and a

bottle containing 100 mls of liquor were produced by Dharam Pal

and Harphool Singh respectively before ASI Umed Singh on

December 2, 1980 which were seized by him and were sealed.

Similarly, another bottle containing 100 mls of liquor was

produced by one Jaswant Singh on December 6, 1980 which was

also seized and sealed. One Ganga Singh produced another

bottle containing spurious liquor which was seized and sealed.

The accused were consequently interrogated which led to the

recovery of empty bottles and corks for preparing and storing the

spurious liquor. 22 bottles of spurious liquor were recovered from

the Bhakra canal on the identification of the accused which were

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 22 of 30 sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban

for chemical analysis. The sprit was procured in the fictitious and

imaginary name of ‘Ram Lal’. The entire record maintained at the

liquor vend Kalanwali was seized and it was found that the entire

record had been forged by the contractors. The interrogation of

the accused further led to the information that the corks and

labels for the bottles were supplied by one Ram Prakash Gupta, a

resident of Sri Nagar, Delhi who was arrested on December 30,

1980. The labels were printed in the name of Haryana Distillery

and other distilleries by Gurbachan Singh alias Pappa and were

supplied to Dwarka Dass. Sufficient evidence is led by the

prosecution to prove that the entire liquor had been supplied from

the local country liquor vend situated at the town of Kalanwali.

The contractors of the licensed vend were identified as Krishan

son of Ram Chand and Som Nath son of Lachhu Ram. They had

adulterated the liquor with methyl alcohol which contained

methanol poison and had sold it through their agents to the

customers. The contractors were always aware that the sale of

alcohol containing methanol poison could cause hurt to the

customers but they were perhaps more interested in making easy

money. That is how the planned sale of methyl alcohol caused

havoc in the area of Kalanwali and Baragudha of District Sirsa. In

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 23 of 30 addition, direct evidence was produced showing the involvement

of the respondents herein in the commission of the ghastly crime.

The trial court specifically discussed the evidence of some of the

witnesses who had deposed that the spurious liquor was

purchased from the shops of respondents herein. It is more than

apparent that the respondents took advantage of these gullible

villagers getting transient and falling to their prey. It is this greed

and philistinism of the respondents to make quick money which

has led to this sordid episode.

19) To recapitulate, it has come on record that Inder Singh (PW-43)

testified that his son Darshan Singh had died by consuming liquor

purchased by him from the liquor vend at Kalanwali. He was

working at local Petrol Pump and had consumed the liquor there.

Gurdev Singh (PW-44) testified that Darshan Singh son of Inder

Singh was his maternal nephew who was employed at the Petrol

Pump at Kalanwali. He had gone to purchase the diesel at the

filling station about seven years ago. Darshan Singh was lying on

a bed in delivered state. He informed his maternal uncle that he

had taken liquor which was purchased from the liquor vend at

Kalanwali. He had fallen ill after consuming the liquor and his

vision was gradually falling. Gurdev Singh had immediately taken

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 24 of 30 Darshan Singh to Dr. Vijay for instant medical aid but Darshan

Singh died at Sirsa on the next morning. Gurtej Singh (PW-81)

testified that his cousin Sukhdev Singh had lost his life by

consuming poisonous liquor purchased from the liquor vend at

Kalanwali. He was cremated at 3.30 pm on December 2, 1980.

Similarly, Niranjan Singh, brother of Suranjan Singh, and Tara

Chand had reportedly lost their lives after consuming the

poisonous liquor which they purchased from the liquor vend at

Kalanwali. Harphool Singh (PW-225) testified that he had gone

to the market at Kalanwali on a tractor to sell his cotton crop on

December 2, 1980 along with Harnek Singh and Surjit Singh.

They purchased a bottle of liquor from the vend of Som Nath. All

three of them consumed the liquor and fell seriously ill. They had

produced one half of the bottle before the doctor. Surjit Singh

had lost the vision in the eyes permanently. Hari Singh (PW-220)

testified to the same effect. He had purchased one bottle of

liquor from the liquor vend of Som Nath son of Lachhu Ram. He

knew the vendor personally. He consumed half of the bottle

along with Jarnail Singh. Jarnail Singh expired after consuming

the liquor whereas he became blind. Charanjit Singh, DSP

(PW-288) was working as SI/SHO at Police Station Kalanwali on

December 3, 1980. He had received information about the death

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 25 of 30 of Panna Lal, Budh Ram and Baja Ram after consuming the

spurious liquor and had investigated the matter. He had arrested

the accused and had made recovery of articles at their instance.

These events, pellucid as crystal, point towards the

culpability of the respondents.

20) It is evident from the statements of Inder Singh (PW-43), Gurdev

Singh (PW-44), Gurtej Singh (PW-81), Hari Singh (PW-220) and

Harphool Singh (PW-225) that the spurious liquor had been sold

by the respondents herein and their agents at the liquor vend at

Kalanwali. The trial court while convicting the respondents relied

upon the evidence discussed by us above, to pin down the

respondents.

21) The High Court is, thus, totally wrong in upsetting the findings of

the trial court based on the aforesaid evidence and allowing the

respondents to go scot free. Strangely, there is no discussion on

the abovementioned evidence which appeared on record and the

High Court has blissfully observed that no evidence is produced

to connect or to fasten the responsibility upon the respondents.

Interestingly, the High Court took note of the reasoning given by

the trial court and summarised the same in the following manner:

“The present case against the appellants is built on the premise that they being licensees of the liquor vend

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 26 of 30 from which spurious liquor, responsible for causing deaths of 36 persons and blindings of 44 persons, was purchased. In view of this, according to the State, there is no legal infirmity in the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants. The fact that Krishan and Som Nath were holders of licence to sell liquor at the liquor vend catering to the needs of Kalanwali and Baragudha is not even disputed by the appellants. On the record, we have documents Ex.PW108/A which evidences the acceptance accorded by the Excise and Taxation Department to the bids offered by the appellants. Shri Rajinder Singh, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Hisar has gone on the record to assert that there is only one liquor vend in village Kalanwali and a host of witnesses have deposed to the effect that various persons, who had purchased liquor from the vend of the two appellants and thereafter consumed the same on the fateful day, had either lost their lives or vision and this can only be due to the presence of methyl alcohol that was found in the viscera sent to the Forensic Scientist for examination. It is on the basis of this presence of methyl alcohol in the viscera that the trial court has inferred that the liquor purchased was spurious as it contained un-permissible methyl alcohol. It being common knowledge that methyl alcohol has deleterious/fatal effect on the human body as also the fact that the employees of the liquor vend could not have prepared spurious alcohol without requisite instructions from the liquor licenses i.e. the appellants that the trial court has come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the appellants had been proved.”

22) Immediately thereafter, following remarks are made by the High

Court:

“The reasoning put forth by the trial court cannot be faulted with if there is material on the record in support of the same.”

23) The High Court committed manifest error in observing that

evidence was not produced to connect the respondents with the

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 27 of 30 tragedy. No doubt, there have been some lapses on the part of

the police authorities in not investigating the case with the vigour

that was necessitated. The High Court may also be right in

finding fault with the State administration for not conducting an

inquiry into the circumstances which led to the tragedy for

pin-pointing the shortcomings in the system which permitted sale

of spurious liquor from licenced liquor vend. At the same time,

insofar as culpability of the respondents is concerned, the same

was proved beyond doubt by producing plethora of evidence.

This Court is of the opinion that trial court had rightly come to the

conclusion holding respondents to be the guilty of crime.

24) Insofar as argument predicated on Section 120B of IPC is

concerned, even if we proceed on the basis that charge of

conspiracy is not proved, it would be suffice to observe that

adequate evidence is produced showing the culpability of the

respondents, individually. Once it is shown that the spurious

liquor was sold from the local vends belonging to the respondents

coupled with the fact that after this tragedy struck, the

respondents even tried to destroy remaining bottles clearly

establishes that the respondents had full knowledge of the fact

that the bottles contain substance methyl and also had full

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 28 of 30 knowledge about the disastrous consequences thereof which

would bring their case within the four corners of Section 300

fourthly. The respondents cannot be treated as mere cat’s paw

and naive. They have exploited the resilience nature of bucolic

and rustic villagers.

25) Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and judgment of the

High Court acquitting the respondents is hereby set aside and

that of the trial court convicting the respondents is restored. The

respondents shall surrender to undergo the sentence inflicted by

the trial court.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI;

JUNE 09, 2017.

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 29 of 30

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.4 SECTIONS IIB

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No. 847/2006

STATE OF HARYANA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

KRISHAN AND ANOTHER Respondent(s)

[HEARD BY HON'BLE A.K. SIKRI AND HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Date : 09/06/2017 This appeal was called on for judgment today.

For the Appellant(s) Ms. Monika Gusain, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) Mr. S.K.C.Pasi, AOR

Mr. S.K. Dhingra, AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

For the reasons recorded in the Reportable judgment, which is placed on the file, this appeal is partly allowed and judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents is hereby set aside and that of the trial court convicting the respondents is restored. The respondents shall surrender to undergo the sentence inflicted by the trial court.

(H.S. Parashar) (Parveen Kumar) Court Master AR-cum-PS

Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006 Page 30 of 30