CRALLY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First accused in S.C. No. 1/1997 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur is the appellant. Appellant along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 57-A of the Abkari Act and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant is alleged to be the contractor of T.S. No.180 at Kondazhi and T.S. No. 169 at Vadakkethara and accused Nos.2 and 3 are said to be the salesmen in the said toddy shops respectively. The charge against the appellant and accused 2 and 3 is that they sold toddy containing poisonous substance to PWs. 1, 3 to 23 on 17-4-1996 with the knowledge that toddy adulterated with such poisonous substance would cause death of the persons and thereby committed the offences charged against them. On the side of the prosecution PWs. 1 to 36 were examined and Exts. P1 to P57 and Mos. 1 to 6 were marked. After closing the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the appellant and other accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the allegation and stated that they were falsely implicated in the above case and they had not sold adulterated toddy as alleged by the prosecution. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined. After considering the entire evidence, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 57-A(3) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Accused 2 and 3 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them giving them benefit of doubt. The benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also granted to the appelllant. The conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant are assailed in this appeal.

(2.) This Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri. B. Raman Pillai and learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Puzhakkara Muhammed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions to challenge the impugned judgment : Firstly, it is contended that the trial court had committed serious error in believing the evidence of PWs. 35 and 36 to find the appellant guilty under Section 57-A of the Abkari Act. Secondly, it is contended that the trial court has committed serious error in placing reliance on the evidence of PW 35 C.I. of Police and Exts. P47 and P48 to find the appellant guilty under Section 57-A of the Abkari Act. Thirdly, it is contended that the trial court has committed serious error in finding that the appellant was the e sample has not been legally proved.