Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

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