Supreme Court Explains Essentials To Prove Conspiracy While Affirming Life Sentence To Convicts In Kerala Hooch Tragedy

The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction and life sentence of appellants involved in a deadly conspiracy of liquor poisoning. The Court relied on the landmark case of State v. Nalini to lay down the essential constituents for proving a case of criminal conspiracy. It reaffirmed that “Where in pursuance of the agreement, the conspirators commit offenses individually, all of them will be liable for such offenses even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offenses.”.The Court after examining the testimonies of witnesses was convinced that there was sufficient evidence for establishing a criminal conspiracy. The Court pointed out that the destruction of evidence can link the accused to a larger conspiracy. It further highlighted that the failure of the accused to justify incriminating circumstances can lead the court to draw adverse inferences against them.The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Justice Abhay S. Oka was hearing an appeal against the Kerala HC judgment which confirmed the conviction of appellants under Sections 302, 307, and 326 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 55(a), (h), (i) and Section 57 (A) (1) (ii) of the Abkari Act. In a harrowing incident back in 2003, a deadly conspiracy resulted in the deaths of 7 innocent individuals, left 11 blinded, and more than 40 others with varying degrees of injuries due to alcohol poisoning. The perpetrators, identified as A1, A3, A10, and A11, conspired to mix methyl alcohol with spirit for unlawful gain through an outlet operated by A1.The trial court convicted them in 2004, which was also upheld by the HC. A1 had preferred an SLP before the Apex Court which was dismissed in 2016. Presently, appeals were filed by A10 and A11 before the Supreme Court.The Court first noted that the cause of death for the victims was confirmed as poisoning caused by methyl alcohol, and the courts, after careful consideration, had affirmed A1's role in the illicit liquor trade. After a comprehensive examination of witness testimonies, the court found that the appellants were familiar with A1, and methyl alcohol was allegedly stored at A1’s residence.The court underscored that the appellant(A11), through RR Distributors, procured Biosole with 100% methyl alcohol, purportedly sold to various entities. However, alleged buyers (PW28 to PW33) denied any such transactions or receipt of methyl alcohol-containing cans.Therefore, the court observed, “it is entirely clear that the transactions reflected in the register of RR distributors (Ex.P6) were fictitious and the record prepared was only to show sales ostensibly to genuine customers, as per the process of law.”All conspirators are liable even if they’ve not actively participated in committing those offencesThe court meticulously examined the depositions to determine the sufficiency of evidence to establish a conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court referred to the landmark case of State v. Nalini & Ors. (3-Judge Bench) (1999) 5 SCC 253, summarizing the essential ingredients for constituting a criminal conspiracy-Agreement for Illegal Act or Legal Act by Illegal Means: Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Intent to Commit a Crime: The offense of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law, where intent alone does not constitute a crime. It is the intention to commit a crime and join hands with persons having the same intentionReliance on inferred circumstances and conduct of the accused: It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. Joint Responsibility in Offenses: Where in pursuance of the agreement, the conspirators commit offenses individually, all of them will be liable for such offenses even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offenses.These principles reiterated in the case of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2-Judge Bench) (2013) 13 SCC 1, emphasize the importance of proving an agreement between parties to establish conspiracy. The court's reliance on these principles echoed in cases like Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (3-Judge Bench) (2021) 11 SCC 1 and Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC Online SC 784 where it was clarified the offense of criminal conspiracy is of joint responsibility, all conspirators are liable for the acts of each of the crimes which have been committed as a result of the conspiracyApplying these principles to the facts, the court concluded that the appellants had a known association with A1, visited his residence in the company of other accused individuals, and were involved in the supply and storage of harmful methyl alcohol. Moreover, the appellant (A11) was actively ...

Supreme Court Explains Essentials To Prove Conspiracy While Affirming Life Sentence To Convicts In Kerala Hooch Tragedy

Suraj Parmar

Tags