STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KRISHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Dec., 1980, a very brazen, bizarre and outlandish incident took place, commonly known as 'hooch tragedy'. The deleterious consequence was that 36 persons who had purchased liquor from a licensed vend in Village Kalanwali, District Sirsa, Haryana lost their lives after consuming the same. Another 44 persons who too had purchased the liquor from the same shop and consumed that liquor lost their eye-sight permanently. Numbers of FIRs were registered in which the investigation was carried out by the police. All these cases were clubbed together for the purpose of trial. Orders of consolidation of trials of these FIRs were passed by the Session Judge resulting into a joint trial in which 48 persons were arrayed as accused. This joint trial culminated into passing of judgment by the Session Judge dated Aug. 18, 2000. It resulted into conviction of only two accused persons, namely, Krishan and Som Nath, for the offences under Sec. 302 Penal Code read with Sec. 120B Penal Code who were directed to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00 each. They were also convicted for offence under Sec. 328 Penal Code read with Sec. 120B Penal Code for which they were to suffer imprisonment for a term of 5 years with fine of Rs. 5,000.00 each. Conviction against these two persons were also recorded under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for which sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 was imposed on the two convicts. All the sentences were to run concurrently. It appears that case against two persons had abated because of their demise during trial. Apart from these accused persons, all other accused persons were acquitted.

(2.) The two convicts (respondents herein) challenged the order of their conviction by filing appeal in the High Court. This appeal has been allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated May 09, 2006. The High Court has also indicted the appellant/State of Haryana for its negligence which led to the said tragedy and has directed the State to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000.00 each to the heirs of 36 persons who died after consuming the liquor and pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000.00 to those persons who are rendered blind by consuming a spurious liquor. State of Haryana is in appeal questioning the aforesaid outcome of the appeals which were filed by the respondents herein. Before coming to the reasons which weighed with the High Court acquitting the respondents, certain developments which took place during the pendency of the appeal filed by the respondents in the High Court need a mention at this stage.

(3.) As pointed out above, only two persons were convicted and others acquitted. Neither State nor any of the aggrieved persons challenged the acquittal of those accused. Appeal was only filed by the respondents challenging their conviction. With this, appeal came up for admission before the Division Bench of the High Court. It passed the order dated May 9, 2001 making prima facie observation to the effect that acquittal of other persons was not called for and the matter required reconsideration by the High Court. Accordingly, the Advocate General, Haryana was directed to file an application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of those persons. That order was challenged by filing special leave petition in this Court in which initially the notice was issued and stay was granted in respect of the aforesaid order of the High Court. Ultimately, the order dated May 9, 2001 passed by the High Court directing the State to file application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of persons was set aside by this Court on Nov. 13, 2002. In the meantime, the State Government had filed application for leave to defend in the High Court in which leave had been granted and the case was assigned Criminal Appeal No. 348-DBA of 2001. Following the aforesaid order dated Nov. 13, 2002 of this Court, said appeal was dismissed by the High Court on Feb. 17, 200 In these circumstances, the High Court was left with the Criminal Appeal filed by respondents herein which was to be dealt with by the Court. This appeal took yet another turn. On Feb. 23, 2005, when it came up before the Division Bench of the High Court, it took note of observations made by the trial court in its judgment wherein trial court had castigated the State instrumentality as well and observed that its negligence had also contributed to the unfortunate incident. Taking note thereof, the Division Bench vide its order dated Feb. 23, 2005 framed the following questions for decision by a Larger Bench.