E K CHANDRASENAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOOCH tragedies have been taking heavy toll of human lives throughout the length and breadth of the country. This has been so for a sufficiently long period by now ; and it could be well said that practically every year the liquor barons, in some part or the other of this vast country - Bihar is a recent example - earn easy money by ruining many houses and making many persons destitutes. Many ladies have become widows and many children orphans.

(2.) HERE is a case in which the festive day of Onam 1982 brought disaster to many families inasmuch as the prosecution case is that 70 persons died after having consumed liquor from the shops and sub-shops which were catered by the firm named "Bee Vee Liquors" and 24 lost eye-sights permanently, not to speak of many others who became prey of lesser injuries. The joyous day of Onam ( 1/09/1982 ) thus became a day of disaster to hundreds of families. The magnitude of the calamity swang police into action who, after close of investigation, chargesheeted 10 persons for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 272 and 328 read with Sections 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as some sections of the Kerala Abkari Act. At one stage, the Sessions judge at Ernakulam discharged the 4th accused and framed charges against others excluding one under Section 302 This was challenged before the Kerala High Court who confirmed the discharge of the 4th accused but directed the Sessions Judge to frame charge under Section 302 also. In the trial which proceeded thereafter the prosecution examined 324 witnesses and proved 433 documents. At the close of the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted accused 5 to 8 and 10 of all the charges. In so far as the accused 1 to 3 and 9 are concerned, they were also acquitted of the offences under Section 302 of the Penal Code as well as under the Abkari Act, but were convicted under Sections 120-B and 328 as well as Sections 107 , 109 and 272 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Various sentences were awarded for these offences.

(3.) LET it first be seen whether the conviction as awarded by the High Court is sustainable. To decide this, what we shall have to primarily see is whether the five accused before us had acted in concert in committing the offences for which they have been held guilty by the High Court. Before examining this aspect, it may be stated as the High Court also had not convicted any of the appellants under Section 302 of the Penal Code and as there is no appeal to this Court against the acquittal under Section 302 we are not addressing ourselves, as it is not open to do so, to the question whether the appellants were guilty under Section 302. We, therefore, propose to confine our discussion to the conviction as awarded by the High Court.