Sajeev vs. State of Kerala
Background
In April 2003, a spurious-liquor tragedy in Kerala killed 7 people, blinded 11, and injured over 40 others after methyl alcohol (sold under the brand "Biosole") was mixed with spirit and sold through an illicit liquor outlet run by the main accused. The appellants, Sajeev and Roy, were convicted by the trial court and High Court of conspiring to supply the methyl alcohol used in the poisoning, with Roy additionally shown to run a chemical distribution firm through which the methyl alcohol was procured and falsely recorded as sold to legitimate medical buyers (who denied ever buying it). Both appellants challenged their convictions before the Supreme Court, arguing there was no proof of conspiracy and that supplying spirit alone (even if true) was a separate, lawful business transaction.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found strong, consistent eyewitness testimony placing both appellants at the main accused's residence delivering cans of methyl alcohol, corroborated by forensic evidence that the recovered cans and the cans traced to the distributor's genuine purchase were cast from the same mould, and by proof that the distributor's sales records to hospitals and labs were fabricated. The Court also drew an adverse inference from Roy's apparent attempt to destroy incriminating evidence (burnt plastic residue testing positive for methyl alcohol was found at his property) and from the accused's failure to offer any explanation to over 600 incriminating questions put to them. Applying settled principles on criminal conspiracy and the special reverse burden of proof under Section 57A(5) of the Abkari Act, the Court held the conspiracy and substantive offences fully proved and upheld both convictions; it noted, however, that appellant Sajeev had died during the pendency of the appeal, so his appeal stood abated, while Roy's appeal was dismissed and his bail cancelled. The Court also used the occasion to recommend administrative reforms for faster digital access to case records in criminal appeals.
Lesson Learnt
Even without direct evidence of an express agreement, criminal conspiracy can be proved through consistent circumstantial evidence (presence, conduct, fabricated records, and destruction of evidence) and courts will rarely disturb concurrent findings of guilt by two lower courts unless the findings are perverse or built on inadmissible evidence.