STATE OF HARYANA versus KRLSHAN & ANR.
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 251, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[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 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 
c 
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. 
Case Law Reference 
(1994) 4 Suppl. SCR 122 
AIR 1967 SC 1326 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 9 
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. 
F 
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 
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. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
culminated into passing of judgment 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 
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 
255 
B 
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 
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. 
E 
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 
B 
meantime, the State Government had filed application for leave to defend 
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. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
257 
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 
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 
F 
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. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
259 
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 
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, 
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 
E 
F 
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. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
261 
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 of Kera/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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
263 
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. 
F 
12. Another reason given by the High Court is that except the two 
respondents, all other accused persons were acquitted by the trial court 
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 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 7 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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, 
F 
which cannot be a mere coincidence. It can be, therefore, unhesitatingly 
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. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
265 
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 
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. 
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, 
E 
F 
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. 
B 
c 
18. Evidence is also produced to the effect that 2560 pints of 
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, 
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. 
E 
F 
The
interrogation of the accused further led to the information that the 
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 
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. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
267 
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 
E 
pm on December 2, 1980. Similarly, Niranjan Singh, brother ofSuranjan 
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 
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 
F 
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. 
B 
c 
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. 
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 
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: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"The present case against the appellants is built on the premise 
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 
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 
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
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN & ANR. 
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
269 
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.