LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus KRLSHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 251 STATE OF HARYANA v. KRlSHAN & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2006) JUNE09,2017 (A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] A .B 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 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.