2023 Supreme(SC) 1126

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Sajeev - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 2015
Decided on : 09-11-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In the event of complete denial or silence, Court is entitled to draw adverse inference against accused.
(2) Practice of depositions of material witnesses not being placed on record, which goes to root of pendency and delay in disposing of appeals, is deprecated.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307 and 326 read with Section 120B – Abkari Act – Sections 55(a), (h), (i) and 57 (A) (1) (ii) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Hooch tragedy – Multiple deaths – Life sentence – Cause of death of deceased is poisoning caused by methyl alcohol – So also persons suffering injuries on their body parts as a result of such consumption – To establish conspiracy it is necessary to establish an agreement between parties – Offence of criminal conspiracy is of joint responsibility, all conspirators are liable for acts of each of crimes which have been committed as a result of conspiracy – In law, accused has a duty to furnish some explanation of an incriminating circumstance, with prosecution crossing threshold of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt – However, no explanation, much less a plausible one, is put forth – In the event of complete denial or silence, Court is entitled to draw adverse inference against accused – Accused persons failed to justify incriminating circumstances appearing against them – There can be no doubt left about involvement of accused persons in sale and mixing of methyl alcohol with spirit as part of conspiracy, resulting in deaths and injuries to many innocent persons – Conclusion and conviction arrived concurrently by High Court and Trial Court regarding role played by accused persons in this tragedy does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant interference of this Court. (Paras 16, 36, 41 and 49)

(B) Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XX, Rule 5(2) & (3) – Practice of depositions of material witnesses not being placed on record – Such practices often cause repeated adjournments, which goes to root of pendency and delay in disposing of appeals and Court deprecates such practice – It is suggested that (i) Sub-Rule (3) be amended to insert words ‘soft copy’ before words ‘original records’, resulting in e-copies of Original Records being requisitioned – This would facilitate a much quicker availability of such records to court as also further a more environmentally conscious approach.

(ii) Further, vide necessary amendment to the Rules such requisition of soft copy of record be extended to cases where leave is granted against an order of acquittal or conviction.

(iii) Such soft copy of records, once received be provided to Counsel appearing for parties.

Registry directed to place a copy of this judgment before Chief Justice of India for his appropriate directions. (Paras 56, 57, 58 and 59)

Facts of the case:

Incident in question relates to alcohol poisoning, resulting in death of 7 innocent people, blindness in 11 people, and more than 40 people sustaining injuries. Appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 326 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, Section 55(a), (h), (i) and Section 57 (A) (1) (ii) of Abkari Act. They were awarded imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 and Section 57(A)(1)(ii), along with other sentences, ordered to run concurrently.

Findings of Court:

Interference in concurrent convictions is only warranted when:

i. The finding is perverse.

ii. The finding is based or built on inadmissible evidence.

iii. Courts below have not considered or wrongly discarded vital pieces of evidence that would tilt the balance in favour of accused.

Result : Criminal Appeals dismissed.