Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Notorious Alcohol Poisoning Case: The Whole Business Itself Was a Conspiracy

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the convictions of two individuals, Sajeev (A10) and Roy (A11), in a high-profile case involving the tragic alcohol poisoning incident that led to several deaths and numerous injuries. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, delivered a detailed verdict, affirming the sentences previously imposed by the lower courts.

The case, which has drawn considerable public attention, revolves around the mixing of methyl alcohol with spirit, resulting in the poisoning of many, causing blindness, injuries, and fatalities. The Supreme Court, in its decision, noted, "The whole business itself was a conspiracy," highlighting the severity and premeditated nature of the crime.

Sajeev and Roy were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Abkari Act, including Sections 302, 307, 326 read with Section 120B of the IPC, and Sections 55(a), (h), (i), and 57 (A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act. The judgment emphasized the comprehensive evidence presented, including witness testimonies and forensic evidence, which played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused.

The Court meticulously dissected the testimonies of key witnesses and the forensic analysis to substantiate the involvement of the accused in the conspiracy and the act of poisoning. In its detailed analysis, the bench underlined, "The conviction under Section 57(A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act is independently affirmed, as [the accused] were not only part of the business of mixing methanol but had actively taken part in it."

While the appeal of Sajeev abated due to his demise, the Court dismissed the appeal of Roy and directed him to surrender forthwith, canceling the bail previously granted. This judgment not only reasserts the rule of law but also serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of engaging in activities that endanger public health and safety.

The judgment has been welcomed by many as a testament to the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice in the face of heinous crimes. It also sends a strong message against the illegal and dangerous adulteration of consumable goods, emphasizing the Court's stance on public safety and legal accountability.

Date of Decision: 9th November 2023

SAJEEV VS STATE OF KERALA     

Latest Legal News