9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Criminal liability of the accused for deaths and injuries caused by adulterated liquor. 2. Vicarious liability of partners in the firm. 3. Proof of conspiracy among the accused. 4. Applicability of Sections 326, 328, and 272 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 5. Competency to issue the rule of enhancement of sentences. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Criminal Liability of the Accused The case involved a hooch tragedy during Onam 1982, where 70 people died, and 24 lost their eyesight after consuming adulterated liquor from shops catered by "Bee Vee Liquors." The police charged ten persons under various sections of the IPC and the Kerala Abkari Act. The Sessions Judge acquitted some accused but convicted others under Sections 120B, 328, 107, 109, and 272 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Kerala High Court upheld these convictions and further convicted the accused under Section 326 read with Sections 120B, 107, and 109. 2. Vicarious Liability of Partners in the Firm The principal argument was that the accused could not be held vicariously liable for the firm's misdeeds. The court noted that the partners in active management were directly involved in the adulteration of liquor. The High Court found sufficient evidence that accused 1, 2, 3, and 10 were actively managing the firm, thereby dismissing the argument against vicarious liability. 3. Proof of Conspiracy Among the Accused The High Court concluded that there was a conspiracy among the accused based on the evidence of several witnesses. The Court noted that conspiracies are often proved by circumstantial evidence, given their secretive nature. The evidence pointed to a clear motive for wrongful gains from adulteration, which the High Court described as a "huge profit-making" venture. The Court found that the magnitude of the illegal act and the active management by the accused demonstrated a meeting of minds to undertake the illegal act. 4. Applicability of Sections 326, 328, and 272 of the IPC The court upheld the convictions under Sections 326 and 328, noting that the accused had the requisite knowledge that the adulterated liquor could cause serious harm. The argument that the hurt caused was not "grievous" was rejected, as the permanent loss of eyesight for 24 individuals constituted "grievous hurt" under Section 320 of the IPC. The court also upheld the conviction under Section 272 for adulteration. 5. Competency to Issue the Rule of Enhancement of Sentences The court examined whether it had the competency to issue a rule of enhancement. The court concluded that it had the power to issue such a rule under Article 136 of the Constitution, which vests plenary jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The court also noted that Article 142 would provide sufficient power to pass an order for enhancement if necessary for doing complete justice. The court decided to enhance the sentences due to the enormity of the consequence of the accused's actions, which resulted in 70 deaths and 24 individuals losing their eyesight. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and enhanced the sentences of all the accused to life imprisonment under Section 326 of the IPC. The court directed the trial court to issue warrants for the arrest of the appellants and the concerned District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police to execute the warrants.
|
