Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HARYANAversusKRLSHAN & ANR.
- Citation
- [2017] 7 S.C.R. 251
- Decided
- 9 July 2017
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- A K SIKRI
Holding
The evidence, including medical testimony, victim statements, licence records and the respondents' disposal of bottles, proved their knowledge and participation, thereby upholding the conviction under Sections 302, 328, 120B and 300 IPC.
Summary
In 1980 a hooch tragedy in Kalanwali, Haryana, caused 36 deaths and 44 permanent blindings after victims consumed liquor adulterated with methyl alcohol. Krishan and Som Nath, licensees of the liquor vend, were convicted by the trial court under IPC sections 302, 328 and 120B. The High Court acquitted them, holding that no evidence linked the respondents to the consumption of the spurious liquor. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that medical post‑mortem reports, contemporaneous victim statements, the respondents' licence to operate the vend, and their act of discarding bottles after the incident established their knowledge and participation, satisfying the evidential requirements for conviction under sections 300 (fourthly) and 120B. Consequently, the High Court’s acquittal was set aside and the trial court’s conviction restored.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to connect the respondents with the sale and consumption of the spurious liquor that caused deaths and blindness.
- Whether a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC can stand when other accused were acquitted.
- Whether the respondents' act of destroying remaining bottles constitutes relevant evidence of knowledge and intent.
- Whether conviction under Section 300 IPC (fourthly) is appropriate in the facts of the case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 7
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 300, s. 302, s. 328
- Punjab Excise Act, 1914s. 61(l)(a)
Subjects
hooch tragedyspurious liquormethyl alcohol poisoningconspiracySection 120B IPCculpable homicideSection 300 IPCevidenceSection 7 Evidence Actlicenceliquor vendcompensation
Judgment
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 251
STATE OF HARYANA A
v.
KRlSHAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006)
JUNE09,2017 .B
(A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 r!w s.120B; s.328 - Hooch
tragedy - Sale of poisonous liquor - Prosecution case was that 36
persons lost their life and 44 persons lost their eye sight after C
consuming poisonous liquor purchased from a licenced vends of
the responden_ts - Conviction of respondents-accused by trial court -
Acquittal of all others - Respondents challenged conviction before
High Court - High Court acquitted the respondents on the ground
that there was no evidence to connect_Jhe respondents with the
consumption of methyl alcohol by the victims - High Court also D
indicted appellant-State for its negligence and directed State to pay
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs each to heirs of 36 persons who died
and 1.50 lakhs each to those who were rendered blind by consuming
spurious liquor - On appeal, Held: Medical .evidence supported
the prosecution case that the cause of death and loss of eye sight E
was the result of consuming spurious liquor - The victims and their
relatives stated that they purchased liquor from the vends of
respondents - Such statements cannot be ignored and are relevant
u!s. 7 of Evidence Act - Conduct of the respondents in throwing
away remaining stock after the incident came into limelight is also
a supporting piece of evidence - Apparently greed to make quick F
money led to· this sordid episode - Once it is shown. that the spurious
liquor was sold from the vends belonging to the respondents coupled
with the fact that after this tragedy struck, the respondents even
tried to destroy remaining bottles clearly established that the
respondents had full knowledge of the fact that the bottles contained G
substance methyl and also had fall knowledge about the disastrous
consequences thereof which would bring their case within the four
corners of s.300 fourthly - Order of acquittal is set aside and
conviction ordered by trial court is restored - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s.7.
H
251
252 SUPJlEME COURT REPORTS (2017] 7 S.C.R.
A Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The 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
B 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,
C unhesitatingly concluded that cause of death or loss of eye-sight
was the result of consuming spurious liquor.(Para 14) [264-D-F)
2. All the persons had, immediately after suffering the
consequence of consuming liquor, made a specific and categorical
statement that they had purchased the liquor from the vends of
D 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
E under Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 16)[265-
E-F)
3. That apart, the prosecution also led the evidence to the
effect .that the respondents were given the licence for running
liquor vends in Kalanwali town at the relevant time. This fact is
F not disputed by the respondents. Another shocking fact which
was brought on record, and which was taken very lightly by the
High Court, was 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 in the stock/vends by throwing them away in the river/canal.
G 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
H evidence brought on record.(Para 17)[265-F-H; 266-A)
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 253
4. Sufficient evidence is led by the prosecution to prove A
that the entire liquor had been supplied from the local country
liquor vend situated at the town of Kalanwali. The respondents
were identified as the contractors of the licensed vend. They had
adulterated the liquor with methyl alcohol which contained
methanol poison and had sold it through their agents to the B
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 addition, direct evidence was produced showing the C
involvement of the respondents 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. It is more than apparent
that the respondents took advantage of these gullible villagers D
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. (Para 18)1266-F-H; 267-A-B]
S. The High Court committed manifest error in observing
that evidence was not produced to connect the respondents with
the tragedy. No doubt, there have been some lapses on the part E
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 F
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. The
trial court rightly came to the conclusion holding respondents to.
be the guilty of crime. Insofar as argument predicated on Section
120B of IPC is concerned, adequate evidence is produced G
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
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A bottles clearly establishes that the respondents had full
knowledge of the fact that the bottles contain substance methyl
and also had full 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
B cat's paw and naive. They 'have exploited the resilience nature
of bucolic and rustic villagers. (Paras 23, 24)[269-D-H; 270-Al
Joseph Kurian Philip Jose v. State of Kera/a [1994] 4
Suppl. SCR 122 : (1994) 6 SCC 535; Fakhruddin v.
State of MP. AIR 1967 SC 1326 - referred to.
c Case Law Reference
(1994) 4 Suppl. SCR 122 referred to Para 9
AIR 1967 SC 1326 referred to Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
D 847 of2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2006 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 418-DB
of 2000 (O&M).
Sanjay KumarTyagi, Addi. AG, Dilip Pratap, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
E Advs. for the Appellant.
R. S. Sodhi, Sr. Adv., Harpreet Singh Sandhu, Satyapal Khushal
Chand Pasi, Ms. Apama Rohatgi Jain, Mahesh Kasana, S. K. Dhingra,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. 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
G 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 investigation was carried out by the police. All these cases
were clubbed together for the purpose of trial. Orders of consolidation
of trials of these FIRs were passed by the Session Judge resulting into a
H joint trial in which 48 persons were arrayed as accused. This joint trial
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 255
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
culminated into passing ofjudgment 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 ofRs.10,000/- each. They were also convicted
for offence under Section 328 IPC read with Section 120B IPC for
B
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 6l(l)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for
whkh 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 C
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, 2006. The D
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 ofRs.2,00,000/- each to the heirs of36 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 ofHaryana is in &ppeal questioning the aforesaid outcome of the E
appeals which were filed by the respondents herein. Before comingtO
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. F
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 G
order dated May 9, 2001 makingprimafacie 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 to file an application for leave to appeal against
the acquittal of those persons. That order was challenged by filing special
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 7 S.C.R.
A 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
B
in the High Court in which leave had been granted and the case was
assigned Criminal Appeal No. 348-DBA of2001. 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
C 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
D unfortunate incident. Taking note thereof, the Division Bench vide its
order dated February 23, 2005 framed the following questions for decision
by a Larger Bench.
"(I) How the investigation is to be conducted in such like cases
where number of persons die and become disabled?
E (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 oflaw?"
4. The matter was referred to the Full Bench. However, while
dealing with the aforesaid reference, the Full Bench felt that for giving
F 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
G 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,
H a statement was made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 257
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
State that the said amount had already been deposited by the Deputy A
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 B
were informed that the said amount already stands disbursed. Because
of this development, when the amount is already paid to the vi~Jims 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 C
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 D
be recapitulated at this stage, as there was no dispute that there is no
error in recording the prosecution case.
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 E
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 F
a.m. Puran Chand had complained of some restle'ssness, 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 G
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.
H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A ASI Urned Singh initiated the inquest proceedings and forwarded
the dead body to the Civil Hospital, Sirsa for auto~y. He also took into
possession the pint which still contained a few drops of liquor. In the
meantime, the police received information about Moo la Ram and Rura
Ram having been admitted in Civil Dispensary, Kalanwali in a precarious
B 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 ofDalip Singh, Jagdish son of Kaur Chand, Ram Bhaj son of
Hari Ram, Jagdish alias D.C. son ofBrij Lal, Surenderpal son ofDesh
C · Raj, Moti son ofBrij Lal and Desh Raj son· ofDuli Chand had in conspiracy
with eac_h 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
D spurious liquor supplied by the liquor vend at Kalanwali was stated to
have Jed to the deaths of36 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, Muila Ram, Rura Ram, Tara Chand,
Hardatt Singh, Pirthvi Chand, Sahab Singh, Mohan Lal, Hanuman,
E Darbara Singh; Darshan Singh, Sukhdev Singh son of Hazur Singh,
Sukhdev Singh son ofHari Singh, Mita Singh, Balwant Singh, Naib Singh,
Bachitar Singh, Ved Prakash son of Mam Chand, Major Singh, Niranjan
Singh, Bhola Singh, Kartar Singh, Ved Prakasfi son of Madan Lal, Nand
Singh son of Kunda Singh and Balbir Singh son of Gurdial Singh had
F between December 1, 1980 and December 4, I 980 suffered from the iII
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 ofLachhu Ram, who were admittedly licensed holders of
the vend, 43 persons, namely, Sampuran Singh son of Hamam Singh,
G 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, Gumam Singh, Pyare Lal,
Harphul, Hamek Singh, Surjit Singh son of Bµggar, Gurcharan Singh,
H
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 259
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
Harnekson ofJang Singh, Shyam Singh, Mukhtiar Singh son ofChanan, A
Mukhtiar 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 B
48 persons were sent up to stand their trial and proceeded agaiitst 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 lea\l evidence in support of this case.
c
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 as'sociated with the
investigation of the case. D
On the closure of the prosecution evidence, only the statements
of Som Nath, Dwarka Dass, Gajjan Singh, Jagdish son ofBrij 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 circumstances appearing in E
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, F
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 G
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
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A 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 1208 IPC. It was further
argued that once it is found that conviction under Section 120B IPC is
unsustainable, necessary consequences thereof would be that there was
B 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
C 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 prov.ed to show that respondents were in any way
D connected with the preparation and sale of spurious liquor. Likewise,
there was no evidence tci 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
E or with the consent of the respondents and there is no evidence available
on the file from which the complicity of the respondents could be inferred
in the preparation and sale of spurious liquor. H was also submitted that
in the case ofnone of the victims had, the investigating agency, collected
evidence to prove that that the respondents had directed their Karindas
F 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
G 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
H Kalanwali for the year 1980-1981. The accusation of the prosecution
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 261
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
was that they had sold adulterated alcohol containing methanol poison A
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 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 B
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 ofKera/a, (1994) 6 SCC 535, the respondents
were convicted. According to the High Court, this was hardly any C
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 D
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 consuming the said
alcohol by the deceased and other victims from the bottles that had been E
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. F
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 G
bottle ofliquor 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.
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A 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
B
them from the liquor vends of the appellants. ln an answer to a
categorical question put up by us, the learned Advocate Gentral,
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
c 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 stated to be responsible for
the blindings with the bottles which have been purchased from
D
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
E 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
F
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
G 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
H
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 263
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
also involve the violation of the provisions of the 1954 Act A
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 B
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. C
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
being sold out at their licensed vend contained methyl alcohol as
also on account of the fact that there is no evidence to prove D
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." E
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 F
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 G
criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of!PC 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 support of this
conclusion. H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
c 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
D ways. This gruesome occurrence, where so many persons became the
victims, happened was proximate to the place where vends of 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
E 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
F 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
G 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 witness box and testified to the aforesaid
H effect which is supported by medical records. This was a kind of
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 265
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
maelstrom, a whirlpool, wherein 3 6 persons drowned in spurious liquor. A
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 B
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 c
the poisonous liquor adulterated with methyl alcohol containing methanol
poison, ASI Urned Singh landed at the Civil Dispensary ofKalanwali 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 ofKrishan and
Som Nath located in the area ofKalanwali. ASI Urned Singh had barely D
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 E
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. F
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 G
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 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 H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A 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
B liquor were seized by the police from the liquor vends between 3ru and
5•h of December, 1980. A bottle containing 50 mis of liquor and a bottle
containing 100 mis ofliquor were produced by Dharam Pal and Harphool
Singh respectively before ASI Urned Singh on December 2, 1980 which
were seized by him and were sealed. Similarly, another bottle containing
100 mis of liquor was produced by one Jaswant Singh on December 6,
c 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
D the identification of the accused which were sealed and sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban fo~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
E 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 ofHaryana Distillery and
other distilleries by Gurbachan Singh alias Pappa and were supplied to
Dwarka Dass. Sufficient evidence is led by the prosecution to prove
F that the entire liquor had been supplied from the local country liquor
vend situate.d at the town ofKalanwali. 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
G 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 addition, direct evidence
was produced showing the involvement of the respondents herein in the
H
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 267
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
commission of the ghastly crime. The trial court specifically discussed A
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 gullibPe
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
B
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 arid had consumed the liquor there. Gurdev Singh
(PW-44) testified that Darshan Singh son oflnder Singh was his maternal C
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· D
his vision was gradually falling. Gurdev Singh had immediately taken
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 th~ liquor vend at Kalanwali. He was cremated at 3.30
pm on December 2, 1980. Similarly, Niranjan Singh, brother ofSuranjan E
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 F
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 G
along with Jarnail Singh. Jamail Singh expired after consuming the liquor
whereas he became blind. Charanjit Singh, DSP (PW-288) was working
as .Sl/SHO at Police Station Kalanwali on December 3, 1980. He had
received information about the death of Panna Lal, Budh Ram and Baja
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A 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.
B 20. It is evident from the statements of Inder Singh (PW-43),
Gurdev Singh (PW-44), Gurtej Singh (PW-81) 1 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
c 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
D 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
E that they being licensees of the liquor vend from which spurious
liquor, responsible for causing deaths of36 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
F 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
G
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
H
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 269
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
methyl alcohol that was found in the viscera sent to the Forensic A
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 B
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 C
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 D
evidence was not produced to connect the respondents with the 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 E
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. F
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 ve.nds belonging G
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 knowledge about the disastrous
consequences thereof which would bring their case within the four
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A comers 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
B trial court convicting the respondents is restored. The respondents shall
surrender to undergo the sentence inflicted by the trial court.
Devika Gujral Appeal partly allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "hooch tragedy"Sign in to search