SAJEEV versus STATE OF KERALA
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 241, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 241 : 2023 INSC 998
241
CASE DETAILS
SAJEEV
v.
STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2011)
NOVEMBER 09, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the conviction and sentence of the 
accused-A10 and A11 u/ss. 302, 307, and 326/120B IPC and s.55(a), (h), 
(i) and s. 57 (A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act by the courts below is sustainable 
in law. 
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 307 and 326/120B – Akbari Act – ss. 
57(A)(1)(ii) and 55 – Conspiracy of alcohol poisoning – A1, kingpin 
of the illicit liquor business alongwith A3, A10, and A11 hatched a 
conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit to sell the same for an 
unlawful gain through the outlet operated by A1, and the consumption 
of the same resulted in the death of 7 innocent people, blindness in 11 
people, and injuries to 40 people – Conviction qua A1 upheld right up 
to this Court – Conviction of the accused-A10 and A11 u/ss. 302, 307 
and 326/120 B and s. 55(a), (h), (i) and s. 57 (A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari 
Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the oﬀ ence u/s. 302 
and s. 57(A)(1)(ii), along with other sentences, by the courts below – 
Interference with:
Held: Not called for – Relationship between A10 and A11, and their 
relationship with A1; and the role played by each one of them in hatching 
a conspiracy, if any, supply of Biosole and subsequent malice in the supply 
and sale of illicit liquor established – Cause of death of the deceased 
persons
was poisoning caused by methyl alcohol, so also the persons 
suﬀ erred injuries on their body parts as a result of such consumption – 
Prosecution succeeded in establishing the oﬀ ence of criminal conspiracy 
of A10 and A11 with A1 – Accused failed to justify the incriminating
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
circumstances appearing against them – Oﬀ ence u/s. 57(A)(1)(ii) of 
mixing noxious substance likely to endanger human life, attributable 
to them – Also, in res gestae ss. 6 and 8 of the Evidence Act applicable 
– Furthermore, there is evidence relating to the transport, bottling and 
sale of methyl alcohol – Accused persons have been established to be in 
conspiracy for common objectives throughout – Conviction of A10 and 
A11 u/s. 55(a), (h) and (i) upheld – Thus, the involvement of the accused 
persons in the sale and mixing of methyl alcohol with spirit as part of 
the conspiracy, resulting in deaths and injuries to many innocent persons 
proved – Conviction of A10 and A11 u/ss. 302, 307, 326 and 120B IPC 
and 57(A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act, by the courts below upheld. [Para 16, 
37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48-50]
Criminal Law – Concurrent convictions – Interference – When 
warranted: 
Held: It is when the ﬁ nding is perverse; ﬁ nding is based or built on 
inadmissible evidence; and the courts below have not considered or wrongly 
discarded vital pieces of evidence that would tilt the balance in favor of the 
accused. [Para 51]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 120B – Criminal conspiracy – Necessary 
ingredients to constitute a criminal conspiracy – Elucidated. [Para 35]
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XX, r. 5, sub rules 2 and 3 – 
Criminal Appeals – Suggestion for amendment of sub-rule 3:
Held: Perusal of sub-Rules 2 & 3 of r. 5 shows that
physical copies 
of the original records are to be called for, in criminal appeals involving 
sentence of life or the death penalty – It is suggested that sub-rule 3 
be amended to insert the words ‘soft copy’ before the words ‘original 
records’, resulting in e-copies of the Original Records being requisitioned 
– This would facilitate a much quicker availability of such records to the 
court as also further a more environmentally conscious approach – Such 
requisition of the soft copy of the record be extended to cases where 
leave is granted against an order of acquittal or conviction – Also, soft 
copy of the records, once received be provided to the counsel appearing 
for the parties. [Para 58]
243
Judicial deprecation – Practice of depositions of material witnesses 
not being placed on record – Eﬀ ect: 
Held: Such practice often cause repeated adjournments, which 
goes to the root of pendency and delay in disposing of appeals – Thus, a 
suggestion to amend sub rule 3 of rule 5 of Order XX of the Supreme Court 
Rules, 2013 by inserting the words ‘soft copy’ before the words original 
records resulting in e-copies of the original records being requisitioned, at 
a quicker pace – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XX, r. 5, sub rules 
2 and 3. [Para 56]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI (2003) SCC (Crl.) 869; P.K. Narayanan v. 
State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142; Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 
2023 SCC Online SC 784; Hari and Anr. v. State of UP. 2021 SCC Online 
SC 1131; Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 
624; State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 
253: 1999 ( 3 ) SC 1; Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra 
(2013) 13 SCC 1: 2013 (15 ) SCR 1; Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra 
(2021) 11 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Krishan (2017) 8 SCC 204: [2017] 7 
SCR 251; Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256: 
[2014] 3 SCR 551; Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC Online 
1364; Chandran v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161: [2011] 8 SCR 273; 
P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187: [1994] 5 Suppl. 
SCR 526; Mekala Sivaiah v. State
of A.P. (2022) 8 SCC 253; Ravasaheb 
and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 5 SCC 391 – referred to. 
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1134 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2010 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLA No.792 of 2004.
With
Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2015.
SAJEEV v. STATE OF KERALA
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
Appearances:
R Basant, Sr. Adv., Renjith B. Marar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, 
Santhosh M. J., Harsh Vardhan Shah Shyam, Arun Poomulli, Davesh Kumar 
Sharma, Vishnu Pazhanganat, Ms. Ashu Jain, M Gireesh Kumar, Ankur 
Kulkarni, Sharath S Janarathanan, Vijay Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, 
Subhash Chandran K.R., Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL, J. 
1. The present appeals arise from the ﬁ nal judgment and order dated 
23.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal 
Appeal No.72 of 2004, which conﬁ rmed the judgment and order dated 
02.04.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Kollam in Sessions Case No.1308 of 
2003 vide which the present Appellants, two in number, namely,(i) Sajeev 
(Accused No. 10) and (ii) Roy (Accused No.11) were convicted under 
Sections 302, 307 and 326 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code 
(hereinafter ‘IPC’), Section 55(a), (h), (i) and Section 57 (A) (1) (ii) of the 
Abkari Act. They were awarded imprisonment for life for the oﬀ ence under 
Section 302 and Section 57(A)(1)(ii), along with other sentences, ordered 
to run concurrently. 
2. The incident in question relates to alcohol poisoning, resulting in 
the death of 7 innocent people, blindness in 11 people, and more than 40 
people sustaining injuries. 
3. The prosecution case
emerging from the record, as also set out by 
the Courts below, is as follows: 
i. 
On 04.04.2003, at about 7 PM, A1, A3, A10, and A11 hatched 
a conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit to sell the same 
for an unlawful gain through the outlet operated by A1. In 
furtherance of this conspiracy, A10 and A11 brought 21 cans 
(each of 5L) containing methyl alcohol labeled as ‘Biosole’ in
245
the Maruti car owned by A10 to the residence of A1 and A3 on 
05.04.2003.
ii. 
Thereafter, A2, A7, and A8 brought spirit to the residence of A1 
and A3 in the Ambassador car owned by A2. Methyl Alcohol 
supplied by A10 and A11 was mixed with this spirit by A1 and 
A3 and sold through A1’s outlet. A4, A5, A6, A9 and A12 assisted 
A1 in this sale. 
iii. 
Seven persons, including A4 and A12, died after consuming the 
spurious liquor on 09.04.2003 – 10.04.2003. PWs 1 – 9 and 11 
-12 also fell ill after consuming the said liquor. PW70, DYSP, 
received information about the incident and commenced the 
investigation with PW67, Addl. Sub-Inspector, Anchalummode 
Police Station. After recording statements, PW67 registered FIR 
(Ex.P186) under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC 
and Section 57A of the Abkari Act. 
iv. 
The prosecution examined 76 witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 
to P259 along with material objects (hereinafter ‘MO’)MO 1 to 
MO 29. The defence did not adduce oral evidence. After carefully 
considering the evidence produced, the Trial Court convicted the 
accused persons in the manner discussed above. 
4. The Trial Court, after elaborate consideration, vide common 
judgment dated 02.04.2004, convicted the accused persons facing trial for 
diﬀ erent oﬀ ences and awarded sentences therefor. Accused No.1, 2, 5-9, 
10 and 11 preferred appeals from the Trial Court to the High Court. The 
High Court conﬁ rmed the judgment of the Trial Court against these
accused 
persons. The picture emerging is depicted in the chart below:
No.
Name
Trial Court
High Court
Crime
Punishment Awarded
-
1.
A1 – Thampi
IPC – S.302 
and 120B
Imprisonment for life 
(302) and RI for 10 years 
(120B); Rs.50,000 ﬁ ne
Conviction 
aﬃ  rmed for all 
oﬀ ences
IPC - S.307
RI for 7 years; Rs. 50,000 
ﬁ ne 
IPC – S.326
RI for 7 years; Rs. 50,000 
ﬁ ne 
SAJEEV v. STATE OF KERALA
[SANJAY KAROL, J.]
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
Abkari Act – 
S.57 (A) (1) 
(ii) 
Imprisonment for life; Rs. 
50,000 ﬁ ne
Abkari Act – 
S.55(a), (h) 
and (i)
R.I. for 7 years; 
Rs.7,00,000 ﬁ ne
2. 
A2 – Saji @ 
Parippally Saji 
Abkari Act – 
S.55(a)(i) 
R.I. for 10 years; Rs. 
2,00,000 ﬁ ne
Conviction 
aﬃ  rmed for all 
oﬀ ences
3. 
A3 – Shobhana 
@ Maya 
Abkari Act – 
S.55(a) 
R.I. for 1 year; Rs. 
1,00,000 ﬁ ne
No appeal 
preferred
4. 
A4 – Shaji @ 
Jinu Shaji
Died 
5. 
A5 – Rajesh @ 
Bai
Abkari Act – 
S.55(a)(i)
R.I. for 10 years; Rs. 
2,00,000 ﬁ ne
Conviction 
aﬃ  rmed for all 
oﬀ ences
6. 
A6 - Hussain 
7. 
A7 – Sony
8. 
A8 – Vipin B. 
Nair
9. 
A9 – Santhosh 
10. 
A10 - Sajeev
A11 - Roy
IPC – S.302 
and 120B
Imprisonment for life 
(302) and RI for 5 years 
(120B); Rs.25,000 ﬁ ne
Conviction 
aﬃ  rmed for all 
oﬀ ences
IPC - S.307
RI for 5 years; Rs. 25,000 
ﬁ ne 
IPC – S.326
RI for 5 years; Rs. 25,000 
ﬁ ne 
Abkari Act – 
S.57 (A) (1) 
(ii) 
Imprisonment for life; Rs. 
25,000 ﬁ ne
11. 
Abkari Act – 
S.55(a), (h) 
and (i)
R.I. for 5 years; 
Rs.5,00,000 ﬁ ne
12. 
A12 – 
Prasanthan 
Died during Trial 
5. Accused No.1 had ﬁ led SLP (Crl.)mDiary No.2018/2016 against 
the order of the High Court, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide
247
order dated 29.01.2016. Therefore, the conviction qua A1 stands aﬃ  rmed. 
No other accused preferred appeal to this Court.
6. Accused Nos.10 and 11 have ﬁ led instant separate appeals by special 
leave against the ﬁ nal judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala, 
upholding their conviction, which were registered as Criminal Appeal 
No.1154 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2015. 
7. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is 
whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and High 
Court on A10 and A11 are sustainable in law or not.
Trial Court and High Court Findings
8. The Trial Court in Sessions Case No.1308 of 2003, after a detailed 
consideration of the voluminous evidence, gave the following ﬁ ndings while 
convicting A10 and A11:
i. 
Given the testimonies of the injured persons and family members 
of the deceased and the doctors who proved the post-mortem 
reports, the Trial Court held the prosecution to have proved 
beyond all reasonable doubt that the cause of death and the 
persons suﬀ ering injuries (except PW21) were only due to the 
consumption of spurious liquor mixed with methyl alcohol.
ii. 
There is overwhelming evidence on record that A1 ran an illicit 
liquor business. 
iii. 
Reliance was placed on Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI1 and P.K. 
Narayanan v. State of Kerala2 to bring home the charge of 
conspiracy and from the material testimonies of PW23, PW24, 
PW11 and PW18, it is evident that on 04.04.2003, all
three, i.e., 
A1, A10 and A11, hatched a conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, 
21 cans containing methyl alcohol (Biosole) were delivered at 
the house of A1. Further, on consideration of witnesses,PW25 
to 35 and PW76, the Trial Court adduced that it can be safely 
held that 21 cans of Biosole transported to the house of A1 and 
1 
(2003) SCC (Crl.) 869
2 
(1995) 1 SCC 142
SAJEEV v. STATE OF KERALA
[SANJAY KAROL, J.]
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
A3 contained methyl alcohol. It was also observed that A11 was 
running the ﬁ rm RR Distributors which supplied the methyl 
alcohol, on behalf of his brother. Reliance was also placed on the 
forensic examination conducted by PW44 in which it was opined 
that the 21 cans recovered by PW76 (IO) from the residence of 
A1, MO15 series and MO31 series (Biosole cans produced by 
PW27) are cast from the same mould. 
iv. 
The recovery of burnt plastic materials from the paramba (lawn) 
of the house of A11, wherein methyl alcohol was detected, cannot 
be connected with the occurrence. 
9. The High Court observed that the testimony of PW11establishes 
A10 and A11 having delivered Biosole at the residence of A1 in 21 cans 
in a maruti car in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched with A1. Also, 
records of RR Distributors, an enterprise of A11, were falsiﬁ ed by making 
speciﬁ c entries with an endeavor to conceal the delivery of 21 cans of 
Biosole to A1. Further, the Court found that on an overall perusal of the 
materials on record, it cannot be said that there was any serious inﬁ rmity 
or illegality in the investigation. In view of the above ﬁ ndings, vide the 
impugned judgment, the conviction and sentence handed down to A10 and 
A11 were conﬁ rmed.
Submissions on behalf of accused persons
10. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for both these 
convicts (Appellants) submit that by no stretch of imagination can the act 
of
conspiracy be attributable towards them.
11. Assuming hypothetically, these convicts can be said to have 
supplied spirit, which is ethanol, as an independent business transaction.
Even then, the factum of mixing and illegally selling the end product is not 
attributable to them,more so, in the absence of any element of conspiracy 
established beyond a reasonable doubt; hence, there is no question of 
conviction under the penal laws of the land. 
12. In so far as Section 57(1)(a) of the Abkari Act is concerned, it was 
submitted the same is not applicable, for they have neither sold nor mixed 
the banned product.
249
Submissions on behalf of the State of Kerala
13. On behalf of the State of Kerala, learned senior counsel has 
submitted that the prosecution has placed suﬃ  cient evidence on record to 
bring home the charge of conspiracy against A10 and A11. A10 is a close 
associate of A11 and together, in a conspiracy, they sold methyl alcohol to 
A1, with full knowledge of the material being sold illegally and the purpose 
of its purchase. 
Submissions on behalf of Amicus Curiae
14. Learned Counsel, Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, was appointed by this 
Court as an Amicus Curiae vide order dated 20.07.2023 to assist the Court. 
The Amicus Curiae has submitted his submissions in four parts, placing on 
record: (a) the relevant testimonies; (b) the relevant exhibits; (c) the relevant 
portion of the testimonies; and (d) a chart indicating the role played by A10 
and A11.
Our View
15. The Courts below have held A1 to be the kingpin of the illicit liquor 
business. The conviction qua A1 has come to be conﬁ rmed right up to this 
Court. Hence, the issues requiring consideration are: (a) the relationship 
between A10 & A11, and their relationship with A1; and (b) the role played 
by each one of them in hatching a conspiracy, if any, supply of Biosole and 
subsequent malice in the supply and sale of illicit liquor. 
16. Undisputedly, the cause of death of the deceased is poisoning 
caused by methyl alcohol. So also the persons suﬀ ering injuries on their 
body parts as a result of such consumption.
17. Against this backdrop, we now proceed to examine the case of 
the prosecution with respect to A10 and A11, as has unfurled through the 
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 
18. PW11, Rajesh in his testimony, has deposed that he knew A1 
for having worked with him as a mason. On 05.04.2003, he was present 
at the residence of A1, for doing such work. At that time, A10 (whom he 
had also seen earlier) and A11 arrived at the residence at around 7 PM in 
an ash-coloured maruti car. From the car, 3-4 cardboard boxes were taken 
out. Also, A3 and A4 brought 3 cans of 35L each, which were ﬁ lled up with 
SAJEEV v. STATE OF KERALA
[SANJAY KAROL, J.]
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
the contents of the cans taken out from the cardboard boxes taken out by 
A3 and A4 from the car. After this process was over, PW11 assisted A4, 
in carrying the cans to the property of Kamalamma. Further, A10 and A11 
received cash from the residence of A1 and left. Pertinently, PW11 was one 
of the injured as a result of the incident and has identiﬁ ed A10 and A11 in 
Court. He correctly identiﬁ es the big vessel in which the cans were emptied, 
marked as MO14 series; the cans from the cardboard box, marked as MO15 
series (21 in number) and the maruti car of A10, marked as MO16. Nothing 
material or signiﬁ cant is brought out in the cross-examination part of his 
testimony, rendering his version to be doubtful in any manner. 
19. PW18, Vincent is a neighbor of A1. Even though this witness turned 
hostile, for not remembering having seen A10 and A11, yet, pertinently, he 
identiﬁ ed the car (MO16) of A10 in which the methyl alcohol was brought at 
the residence of A1 by the appellants. It is the settled law that the testimony 
of a hostile witness can be accepted to the extent that the version is found to 
be dependable on careful scrutiny thereof. Testimony of such a witness can 
be relied upon and cannot be treated as being washed oﬀ  the record. [Refer: 
Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi)3 (3-Judge Bench); Hari and Anr. 
v. State of UP.4 (3-Judge Bench) and Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. 
State of Gujarat5 (2-Judge Bench)]
20. PW23, Vinod is an acquaintance of A1. He testiﬁ ed being privy to 
the process of procuring the spirit and converting it into arrack and seeing 
A10 and A11 at the residence of A1 multiple times. Further, he corroborates 
the version of PW11 to the eﬀ ect that both A10 and A11 brought cardboard 
boxes at the residence of A1 on 05.04.2003. Also, out of these cardboard 
boxes, cans containing spirit, resembling the MO15 series were emptied into 
huge cans. Also, he correctly identiﬁ ed all the accused present in the Court. 
21. PW24, Saros, a friend of A1, fully corroborates the version of 
PW11 and PW23, with respect to the visit of A10 and A11 to the residence 
of A1 and delivery of M015 series cans, which were poured into 3 larger 
cans containing methanol, measuring 35L each. 
3 
2023 SCC Online SC 784
4 
2021 SCC Online SC 1131
5 
(1999) 8 SCC 624
251
22. From a conjoint reading of the testimonies of the above witnesses, 
what comes to be established is that: (a) A10 and A11 were known to A1; 
(b) A10 and A11 visited the residence of A1 on 05.04.2003, in the presence 
of other accused persons/independent persons; and (c) some material which 
is alleged to be methyl alcohol was supplied in 21 cans, which were emptied 
into 3 cans of 35L each and stored at the residence of A1. Keeping this in 
mind, we proceed to examine the next set of witnesses. 
23. PW25 Sheeja, in her testimony, states that she provided her 
pharmacy license to A11, which enabled him to start his ﬁ rm RR Distributors. 
24. PW26, Violet worked as a receptionist in the ﬁ rm of A11 by the 
name of, RR Distributors at Attingal. As per her version, though A11 is 
running this ﬁ rm but the license is in the name of his brother Roni (PW35). 
In Court, he correctly identiﬁ es A11, who is in the business of distribution 
of surgical spirit, chemicals, needles and lab equipment for which a stock 
register was maintained. The ﬁ rm had purchased 24 cans, being 5L each of 
Biosole from anotherﬁ rm in Veli. She testiﬁ es to the order book (Ex.P4), 
the stock register (Ex.P5) and the bill book (Ex.P6) and to the following 
transactions being recorded in the bill book concerning Biosole (21 cans 
in total):
i. 
Medical Lab purchased 5 cans on 01.03.2003, Ex.P6(a).
ii. 
Southern Lab purchased 2 cans on 06.03.2003, Ex.P6(b).
iii. 
Saj Hospital purchased 1 can on
08.03.2003, Ex.P6(c).
iv. 
KV Hospital purchased 2 cans on 12.03.2003, Ex.P6(d).
v. 
Holy Cross purchased 1 can on 14.03.2003, Ex.P6(e).
vi. 
Parvathy Lab purchased 4 cans on 15.03.2003, Ex.P6(f).
vii. Koshy Dental Clinic purchased 1 can on 22.03.2003, Ex.P6(g).
viii. City Hospital purchased 2 cans on 26.03.2003, Ex.P6(h).
ix. 
Metro Lab purchased 1 can on 31.03.2003, Ex.P6(i).
x. 
Cosmos Lab purchased 1 can on 02.04.2003, Ex.P6(j).
xi. 
Modern Lab purchased 1 can on 04.04.2003, Ex.P6(k).
SAJEEV v. STATE OF KERALA
[SANJAY KAROL, J.]
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
25. PW27 Ramesan is the owner of the ﬁ rm that sold Biosole to RR 
Distributors ﬁ rm as deposed by PW26. He testiﬁ es the factum of placing 
the order of and delivery of 24 cans of 5L each to the said ﬁ rm, vide bill 
(Ex.P12). He unrefutedly identiﬁ ed A11 in Court and pertinently, testiﬁ ed 
that the Biosole delivered by him was in the cans similar to MO15 series, 
which were marked as MO31 series, being the sample jar containing Biosole 
containing 100% methyl alcohol. 
26. With the transaction of purchase and delivery of Biosole having 
been established beyond reasonable doubt, what needs to be examined 
further is also whether the record maintained by the ﬁ rm of A11 was 
fabricated or not. In doing so, we examine the testimonies of the alleged 
purchasers, as depicted in the record. 
27. PW28, Dr. Neelananda Sarma, running Ansar Hospital, denies 
having purchased Biosole from RR Distributors. On similar lines, PW29 Dr. 
A.M. Abdul Kuthoor, running City Hospital; PW30, Dr. Vijaya Chandran 
Nair, running KV Hospital; PW31 Sunil, running Cosmos Lab; PW32 
Biji B, assistant at Koshy Dental Clinic and PW33 Dr. Roy George deny 
having made any purchase of Biosole from RR Distributors and denied 
the bill receipts marked by PW26. Thus, belying the defence set up by the 
appellants of having supplied the goods to these persons, rendering such 
entries being ﬁ ctitious.
28. PW35, Roni is the elder brother of A11. He deposed that he
is running a ﬁ rm called RR Distributors, for which he has obtained a 
license. PW26 is the receptionist. This witness denies having made an 
earlier statement to the police and is declared hostile. Hence, in the cross-
examination part of his testimony, it is revealed that the stamp paper of the 
Rent Deed (Ex.P14) was purchased in the name of A11. 
29. The above witnesses bring to light the fact that actually it is A11, 
who is running and managing the ﬁ rm RR Distributors. Further, Biosole, 
which contains 100% methyl alcohol was procured by A11 through his ﬁ rm, 
RR Distributors. This methyl alcohol is shown to be sold to several diﬀ erent 
entities. However, PW28 to PW33, the alleged buyers, have denied making 
any such transactions or taking delivery of the alleged cans containing 
methyl alcohol.
253
30. Therefore, it is entirely clear that the transactions reﬂ ected in the 
register of RR distributors (Ex.P6) were ﬁ ctitious and the record prepared 
was only to show sales ostensibly to genuine customers, as per the process of 
law. The natural corally, thereto, being that A11, through his ﬁ rm purchased 
Biosole but failed to provide any valid source to whom it was supplied or 
where it was used, which fact he failed to rebut.
31. We now discuss the forensic evidence against these accused persons 
at this stage. 
32. PW44, James Philipose is the Joint Director (General) at FSL, 
Trivandrum. He veriﬁ ed having prepared the FSL Report (Ex.P30), which 
bears his signature. His examination of the plastic cans of MO15 and 
MO31 series revealed the same to have been cast from the same mould. 
Signiﬁ cantly, this fact remains unrebutted on record. Also, from this 
testimony, it is seen that the cans of MO15 series [recovered from the 
residence of A1 by PW76], which, as discussed above, stand proved to 
have been supplied by A10 and A11 to the residence of A1 and the cans of 
MO31 series, which is the sample of the cans provided by PW27 in the sale 
of Biosole, are of the same make and mould. 
33. The next witness to be discussed is PW51, Sindhu. In his testimony, 
he states that he conducted the FSL examination of MO33 series cans (35L 
each). Out of the 5 cans tested, ethyl + methyl alcohol was found in 2 cans 
and methyl alcohol was found in 3 cans. 
34. These witnesses
reveal two pertinent facts: (a) The cans supplied 
by A11 to A1 are from the same mould of cans that were supplied by PW27 
to A11, on purchase of methyl alcohol; and (b) 3 out of 5 cans recovered 
from the residence of A1 tested positive for methyl alcohol.
35. After consideration of these depositions, we must decide whether 
the evidence on record is suﬃ  cient to establish a conspiracy under Section 
120B, IPC. The ingredients to constitute a criminal conspiracy were 
summarised by this Court in State through Superintendent of Police v. 
Nalini & Ors.6 (3-Judge Bench). They are as follows:
6 
(1999) 5 SCC 253
SAJEEV v. STATE OF KERALA
[SANJAY KAROL, J.]
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
i. 
Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to 
be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. 
ii. 
The oﬀ ence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general 
law, where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is the 
intention to commit a crime and join hands with persons having 
the same intention.
iii. 
Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. 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. 
iv. 
Where in pursuance of the agreement, the conspirators commit 
oﬀ enses individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act that 
has a nexus to the object of the conspiracy, all of them will be 
liable for such oﬀ enses even if some of them have not actively 
participated in the commission of those oﬀ enses. 
36. These principles were followed in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. 
State of Maharashtra7 (2-Judge Bench), wherein this Court reiterated that 
to establish conspiracy it is necessary to establish an agreement between the 
parties. Further, the oﬀ ence 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 conspiracy. [See also: Arvind Singh v. State 
of Maharashtra8 (3-Judge Bench); Mohd. Naushad (supra)]
37. Applying these
principles to the case at hand, as discussed above, 
it is established that (a) A10 and A11 were known to A1; (b) A10 and A11 
visited the residence of A1 on 05.04.2003, in the presence of other accused 
persons; (c) Methyl alcohol was supplied to and stored at the residence of A1, 
with the knowledge that the substance being sold was harmful; (d) A11 was 
running the aﬀ airs of the ﬁ rm RR distributors which procured methyl alcohol 
at the ﬁ rst instance and fabricated record of its sale to diﬀ erent entities; (e) 
There is no dispute about the causation of deaths and injuries. Hence, the 
argument on behalf of the present appellants that they did not know A1 and 
7 
(2013) 13 SCC 1
8 
(2021) 11 SCC 1
255
were nowhere connected with the present crime is untenable and cannot 
be accepted. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the 
oﬀ ence of criminal conspiracy of A10 and A11 with A1 (conviction of 
whom stands aﬃ  rmed). 
38. Another aspect to be considered is the destruction of evidence by 
A11, as submitted by both the learned Amicus Curiae and the State of Kerala. 
39. K.J. Devasia (PW76), the Investigating Oﬃ  cer, has deposed that in 
his presence, PW51 collected materials/samples from land at the southern 
side of the residence of A11 which was marked as MO49 to MO53. This 
was in furtherance of information given by A11. 
40. PW51, FSL Assistant Director tested these samples, who in his 
deposition stated that except for MO52, these samples consisted of burnt 
plastic and soil, which all pertinently tested positive for methyl alcohol. This 
supplements the prosecution story that A11 attempted to destroy evidence 
at his residence by burning the incriminating material connecting him to the 
crime. In similar circumstances, this Court in State of Haryana v. Krishan9 
(2-Judge Bench) while convicting the respondents therein placed reliance on 
the conduct of those accused in attempting to destroy evidence to connect 
them to the larger conspiracy. Applying this reasoning to the evidence at 
hand, we disagree with the Trial Court observation that A11’s ﬁ rm had a 
license for methyl alcohol and there is no connection between this piece of 
evidence
and the occurrence of the incident. Per contra, there is no reason 
for the soil sample drawn from the residence of A11 to test positive for 
burnt plastic residue and methyl alcohol, connecting this material to the 
incident in question. 
41. Notably, no less than 627 questions/circumstances were put to A10 
and A11 each under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
This Court has clariﬁ ed on numerous occasions that in law, the accused 
has a duty to furnish some explanation of an incriminating circumstance, 
with the prosecution crossing the 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, the Court is entitled 
9 
(2017) 8 SCC 204
SAJEEV v. STATE OF KERALA
[SANJAY KAROL, J.]
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
to draw an adverse inference against the accused. [Ref: Phula Singh v. 
State of Himachal Pradesh10 (2-Judge Bench); Indrakunwar v. State 
of Chhattisgarh11 (2-Judge Bench)] Applying this to the case at hand, in 
the statements under Section 313, the accused persons failed to justify the 
incriminating circumstances appearing against them. 
42. Apart from the oﬀ ences under the Penal Code, the accused stand 
convicted under provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus, it is pertinent to discuss 
the relevant Sections of the Abkari Act under which these accused persons 
have been convicted. The relevant portion of Section 57A of the Abkari 
Act reads as follows:
“S.57A - For adulteration of liquor or intoxicating drug with 
noxious substances, etc. - 
(1)Whoever mixes or permits to be mixed any noxious substance 
or any substance which is likely to endanger human life or to cause 
grievous hurt to human beings, with any liquor or intoxicating drug 
shall, on conviction, be punishable- 
(i) if, as a result of such act, grievous hurt is caused to any person, 
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years 
but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with a ﬁ ne which 
may extend to ﬁ fty thousand rupees; 
(ii) If, as a result of such act, death is caused to any person, with 
death or imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three 
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with ﬁ ne 
which
may extend to ﬁ fty thousand rupees;
…..
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence 
Act, 1872 (1 of 1872),- (a) where a person is prosecuted for an oﬀ ense 
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the burden of proving that 
he has not mixed or permitted to be mixed or, as the case may be, 
omitted to take reasonable precautions to prevent the mixing of, any 
10 AIR 2014 SC 1256
11 2023 SCCOnline 1364
257
substance referred to in that sub-section with any liquor or intoxicating 
drug shall be on him”
(Emphasis supplied)
43. This Court extensively dealt with Section 57(A)(1) of the Abkari 
Act in Chandran v. State of Kerala12 (2-Judge Bench). It is observed that 
the oﬀ ence under Section 57A is not limited to the holders of the license 
under the Act, but refers to anybody who mixes or permits to be mixed 
any noxious substance, likely to endanger human life with any liquor. The 
burden of proof on the accused person under sub-Section 5 of Section 57A 
stands constitutionality upheld of which has been upheld by this Court in 
P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala13 (2-Judge Bench). 
44. This Court in Chandran (supra) also dealt with the question of 
conspiracy and mens rea for a conviction under Section 57A of the Abkari 
Act. While conﬁ rming the conviction of one of the co-accused persons along 
with the main accused, it was held that the conviction under Section 57(A)
(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act is independently aﬃ  rmed, as he was not only part 
of the business of mixing methanol but had actively taken part in it. Such 
taking part was held to be suﬃ  cient to infer the knowledge about the mixing 
of the spirit. We ﬁ nd it pertinent to reiterate one of the observations therein, 
relevant to the case at hand:
“117. There can be no question about the absence of conspiracy. The 
whole business itself was a conspiracy. It may not be the conspiracy 
to mix the noxious
substance but the fact of the matter is that in order 
to succeed in the business which itself was a conspiracy they mixed 
or allowed to be mixed methanol and used it so freely that ultimately 
31 persons lost their lives. We are not at all impressed by the argument 
regarding knowledge.”
(Emphasis supplied)
45. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the appellants that the oﬀ ence 
under Section 57(A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act is not attributable to them has 
to be rejected. 
12 (2011) 5 SCC 161
13 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187
SAJEEV v. STATE OF KERALA
[SANJAY KAROL, J.]
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
46. Keeping in view the above conspectus and position of law, in res 
gestae Section 6 and Section 8 of the Evidence Act applies, inasmuch as: 
(a) testimonies of the witnesses highlighted by the Amicus Curiae indicate 
the presence of the accused/convicts on the spot at least few days prior to 
the occurrence of the incident; (b) the accused/convicts being present on the 
spot in relation to the supply of the spirit; (c) the accused/convicts knowing 
that they were being in full knowledge of the substance supplied by them to 
be of poisonous/prohibited in nature and permitted the noxious substance 
to be mixed with liquor, likely to endanger human life (d) the convict A11 
having forged the record concerning the supply of the poisonous/prohibited 
substance. 
47. Lastly, the relevant portion of Section 55 of the Abkari Act reads:
“55. For illegal import, etc. - Whoever in contravention of this 
Act or of any rule or order made under this Act: 
(a) 
imports, exports, [transports, transits or possesses] liquor 
or any intoxicating drug; or
×× 
×× 
××
(h) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale; or 
(i) Sells or stores for sales liquor] or any intoxicating drug.”
48. For the sake of brevity, we need not reiterate the evidence relating 
to the transport, bottling and sale of methyl alcohol. Alcohol as mentioned 
in Section 55, has been deﬁ ned under Section 3(10) as any liquid consisting 
of or made of alcohol. Therefore, there can
be no dispute that Section 55 
applies to the transmission of methyl alcohol. It has been established that 
the methyl alcohol was ﬁ rst purchased by A11, then shown to be sold to 
diﬀ erent entities, however, it was provided to A1. These accused persons 
have been established to be in conspiracy for common objectives throughout. 
Therefore, the conviction of A10 and A11 has to be upheld under Section 
55(a)(h) and (i) of the Abkari Act. 
49. There can be no doubt left about the involvement of the accused 
persons before us, in the sale and mixing of methyl alcohol with spirit as 
part of the conspiracy, resulting in deaths and injuries to many innocent
259
persons. The conviction of A10 and A11 under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 
120B IPC and 57(A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act has to be upheld.
50. We therefore ﬁ nd that the conclusion and conviction arrived 
concurrently by the High Court and Trial Court regarding the role played 
by these accused persons in this tragedy does not suﬀ er from any inﬁ rmity 
and does not warrant interference of this Court.
51. Independent of the above discussion, this Court has time and again 
reiterated that interference in concurrent convictions is only warranted when: 
i. 
The ﬁ nding is perverse.
ii. 
The ﬁ nding is based or built on inadmissible evidence.
iii. 
The Courts below have not considered or wrongly discarded 
vital pieces of evidence that would tilt the balance in favor of 
the accused.
[Ref: Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P.14 (2-Judge Bench); Ravasaheb 
and Ors. v. State of Karnataka15 (3-Judge Bench)]
On a perusal of the High Court and Trial Court judgments, it is our view 
that the present appellants have made out none of the above circumstances 
warranting interference of this Court. 
52. We place on record with appreciation for the assistance rendered 
by the Learned Amicus Curiae. 
53. In view of the above, the Appellants’ challenge to the impugned 
judgment fails. 
54. After the judgment was dictated, we have been informed vide letter 
dated 31.10.2023, that one of the appellants, namely, Sajeev (A10 - Criminal 
Appeal No.1134 of 2011), has passed away on 24.09.2023. In that
view of 
the matter, the appeal qua his conviction stands abated.
55. Criminal Appeal No.567/2015, preferred by A11 (Roy) is 
dismissed. The bail granted to A11 by this Court vide Order dated 30.06.2016 
14 (2022) 8 SCC 253
15 (2023) 5 SCC 391
SAJEEV v. STATE OF KERALA
[SANJAY KAROL, J.]
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
stands cancelled and the appellant is directed to surrender before the Court 
concerned forthwith.
56. Before parting with the present appeals, we deem it appropriate to 
deprecate the practice of depositions of material witnesses not being placed 
on record, as recorded in our order dated 20.07.2023. We have observed that 
such practices often cause repeated adjournments, which goes to the root 
of pendency and delay in disposing of appeals. Therefore, it is incumbent 
upon us to provide suggestions, in tackling this issue. 
57. In this backdrop we must refer to Order XX of the Supreme Court 
Rules, 2013 (referred to as ‘the Rules’), which concerns criminal appeals. 
A perusal of sub-Rules 2 & 3 of Rule 5 thereof shows that physical copies 
of the original records are to be called for, in criminal appeals involving 
sentence of life or the death penalty. In all other cases, the calling of such 
records is subject to speciﬁ c orders of a Bench of this Court. 
58. We suggest the following:
i. 
Sub-Rule 3 be amended to insert the words ‘soft copy’ before 
the words ‘original records’,resulting in e-copies of the Original 
Records being requisitioned. This would facilitate a much quicker 
availability of such records to the court as also further a more 
environmentally conscious approach.
ii. 
Further, vide necessary amendment to the Rules such requisition 
of the soft copy of the record be extended to cases where leave 
is granted
against an order of acquittal or conviction.
iii. 
Such soft copy of the records, once received be provided to the 
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
59. We direct the Registry to place a copy of this judgment before 
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for his kind consideration and appropriate 
directions, should he deem ﬁ t.
60. Interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 
Headnotes prepared by:  
Appeal dismissed. 
Nidhi Jain