Ramji Dass and Others vs State of H.P.

T.R. Handa, J.—All the 11 Appellants herein, along with two others, namely, Sarvshri Nand Lal and Pawan Kumar, were put upon their trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Nahan, in connection with the notorious liquor scandal of 1972 which accounted for the loss of as many as 9 human lives as also physical deformities to 17 other living souls in district Sirmur. The charges on which these persons were made to face their trial related to the offences falling under Sections 120B, 273, 273/109, 328, 328/109, 420, 420/109, 304, and 304/109 I.P.C. as also under Sections 61(1)(a), 61(1)(a) read with Section 77, 61(2)(a), 61(2)(a) read with Section 77 and Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act.

After a protracted trial which consumed a period of about 5 years and in which the evidence both oral as also documentary assumed rather a gigantic shape, the learned Sessions Judge delivered his judgment on 28th March, 1978. The Sessions Judge found each of the Appellants guilty of multifarious offences for each of which he recorded a separate conviction and sentence. The full details of the convictions and sentences recorded against each individual Appellant would find mention in a subsequent part of this judgment. Sarvshri Nand Lal and Pawan Kumar the co-accused of these Appellants were, however, acquitted.

Now the case for the prosecution is that the bid of Rs. 2,90,000 given by Appellants No. 1 to 6 for the licence of country liquor vend at Nahan for the year 1972-73 exceeded the highest bid for the similar licence for the preceding year by Rs. 50,000. These licensees were naturally apprehensive that they might run into loss on account of such excessive bidding unless some alternative was found. They, therefore, were anxious to chalk out some device or scheme to meet with the apprehended situation. It was in these circumstances and to ponder over any such scheme or device that they held a meeting in the evening of 26th February, 1972, the day of auction itself. Such meeting was held at the Sunarghati premises of the liquor vend of the licensees for the earlier year 1971-72. All the 11 Appellants participated in that meeting. Those who participated in that meeting besides the Appellants, were Nand Lal and Pawan Kumar who had been tried as co-accused with the Appellants and acquitted, Ram Pratap and Ladu, then working as labourers with the licensees of 1971-72 and who are now absconders as also Tula Ram PW who was working as Accountant with the licensees of 1971-72 and who has since turned approver. Duni Chand PW 57 was the landlord of Sunarghati premises where the meeting was held. He had kept a room for himself in such premises. This witness though he did not participate in the meeting was then lying on a cot in his room and could hear and see what transpired in the meeting since the door connecting his room with the room where the meeting was held had been left open. According to the prosecution it was in this meeting that a conspiracy was hatched between the participants thereof to procure rectified and methylated spirit and to prepare liquor from the same in order to meet the excessive bid given for the licence.

The further case of the prosecution is that the licensees for the year 1971-72 had been allowed to run only one country liquor vend at Sunarghati. They were running such liquor vend at Sunarghati in a premises which they had taken on lease from PW. 57 Duni Chand. Such premises comprised of 4 rooms on the ground floor and also some underground accommodation. The underground accommodation had facilities of electricity and water supply. The then licensees used to prepare liquor from rectified spirit in the underground accommodation and for that purpose they had kept a steel tank of 40 to 45 gallons capacity on a wooden stand in such accommodation.

The licensees of the country liquor vend for Nahan town for the year 1972-73, that is, Appellants No. 1 to 6 were allowed to run two country liquor vends at Nahan, one of such vends being at Gunughat and the other at Kacha Johar. These licensees, therefore, took fresh premises on rent at both these places for running such vends. The premises at Gunughat comprised of 6 rooms and had been taken from one Durga Dutt. The premises at Kacha Johar comprised of one shop only.

The licence for the year 1972-73 was operative from 1st April, 1972. Appellants No. 1 to 6, therefore, started their business of liquor with effect from 1-4-1972 in the premises which they had taken at Gunughat and Kacha Johar. The steel tank which was earlier used at Sunarghati premises by the licensees of 1971-72 for manufacture of spurious liquor was transferred to the inner-most room of Gunughat premises of the new licencees, that is, Appellants No. 1 to 6. In pursuance to the conspiracy hatched on 26th February, 1972, Indar Sen Appellant on 3rd April, 1972 brought 10 plastic jerry cans of rectified spirit from Delhi in car No. HRA 4568 to the aforesaid Gunughat premises. The same night country liquor was prepared from the said rectified spirit brought by Indar Sen in Gunughat premises. Those who took part in the process of preparation of such spurious liquor on that night were Indar Sen, Rullia Ram, Krishan Raj Sud Appellants besides Tula Ram approver and Ladu and Ram Pratap absconders. One Jai Dev was also present during the course of the process and he was burning DHUP in the premises to avoid travelling of foul smell outside the premises. About 33-34 bags of country liquor each containing 24 bottles were prepared out of the rectified spirit brought by Indar Sen on that night. A part of the stuff so prepared was transferred to Sarahan and Kacha Johar vends of the licensees (Appellants Nos. 1 to 6) on the next morning while the remaining stock was retained for sale at Gunughat liquor vend.

The prosecution version then countinues to say that on 8th April, 1972 both Ramji Das and Indar Sen Appellants brought ten jerry cans of methylated spirit from Meerut. This spirit was again processed the same night for manufacture of spurious liquor and 33-34 bags of country liquor each containing 24 bottles were prepared in that process. Those who took part in the process of preparing such liquor on 8th April, 1972 were Ramji Das, Indar Sen, Rullia Ram, Krishan Raj Sud and Bahadur Appellants besides Ladu and Ram Pratap absconders and Tula Ram approver. A part of this stock prepared on the night of 8th April, 1972 was also transferred on the following morning to the other two liquor vends, namely, liquor vend at Kacha Johar and liquor vend at Sarahan while the rest of the stock was retained at Gunughat premises. A chit containing the details of the expenses incurred for the purchase of the aforesaid ten jerry cans of methylated spirit written and signed by Indar Sen Appellant was handed over to Tula Ram approver by this Appellant for making necessary entries in the relevant account books.

The further case of the prosecution is that after its receipt at the licensed country liquor vends at Gunughat, Kacha Johar and Sarahan, the stock of spurious liquor prepared out of the methylated spirit on 8th April, 1972 and as referred to above was put to sale at all these three vends. Rullia Ram Appellant No. 7 and Krishan Raj Sud Appellant No. 11 were the then salesmen incharge of the Kacha Johar and Gunughat country liquor vends respectively. The salesman incharge of the Sarahan country liquor vend during that period was Mangat Rai ppellaut No. 5. In the absence of Mangat Rai, his father Nand Lal and his brother Pawan Kumar who have since been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, also used to attend to the customers at the Sarahan vend.

All these Appellants who were working as salesmen at the different country liquor vends, according to the prosecution version, were in the full know of the spurious and noxious nature of the liquor received and displayed by them for sale and with such knowledge they had sold that liquor to various customers by misrepresenting that it was genuine country liquor.

Rulia Ram Appellant No. 7 during the period 11th April, 1972 to 14th April, 1972 sold the aforesaid spurious liquor at Kacha Johar liquor vend to as many as 12 persons including P.Ws. Hari Chand, Pyare Lal, Om Parkash, Verinder Kumar, K.S. Sidhu, Bhagwati Charan, Chuhar Singh, Raja Ram and Mam Raj. Similarly during the aforesaid period of 11th April, 1972 to 14th April, 1972 Krishan Raj Sud Appellant No. 11 sold the said spurious liquor at his Gunughat vend to P.Ws. Lekh Raj, Arun Kumar, Darshan Lal and to Sarvshri Ravinder Mohan and Laxmi Chand. Mangat Rai Appellant No. 5 incharge of country liquor vend Sarahan sold such liquor to P.Ws. Dhungla, Kehar Singh, Raja Ram and also toRehmi, Prabhu and Sohnu. Nand Lal father of Mangat Rai Appellant No. 5 effected sale of such liquor to Sunder Singh and Mohan Lal.

All the above-mentioned purchasers of spurious liquor consumed the same. Soon after its consumption these persons complained of giddiness, headache, abdominal pain, nausea and blurred vision. They were left with no alternative but to seek admissions in the local hospitals. They started dropping-in Civil Hospital Nahan and Civil Hospital Sarahan with effect from 13th April, 1972. The hospital authorities diagnosed these cases as cases of liquor poisoning. They, therefore, sent full particulars of these suspected cases of liquor poisoning to the police. On the basis of these informations as many as 10 cases were registered with police station Nahan and one such case was registered with police station Pachhad.

Out of the persons admitted in the hospitals 6 of them expired as a result of consumption of such spurious liquor. These 6 persons are Mam Raj, Ravinder Kumar, Laxmi Chand, Sunder Singh, Kehar Singh and Mohan Lal. The dead bodies of all these persons were subjected to postmortem examination and their visceras were sent for chemical examination. The chemical examination revealed the presence of methyl alcohol in urine, kidney and lungs of all these deceased persons.

Samples of blood and urine of the other victims of the spurious liquor who had been admitted in the civil hospitals were also taken and sent for chemical examination. Methylated spirit was detected in the urine samples of P.Ws. Hari Chand and Om Parkash. No poison was, however, detected in the other samples.

Immediately after the information with respect to the admission of persons suspected of liquor poisoning in the hospitals was received by the police, both the police as also the Excise Department jumped into action. They sealed all the three liquor vends of Gunughat, Kacha Johar and Sarahan as also the whole-sale country liquor vend of Appellants No. 1 to 6 situate at Sainwala. Later samples from all the stocks found, in these liquor vends were taken and sent for chemical examination. Some of these samples were found to contain illicit liquor.

In the course of investigation the Sunarghati premises of the licensees for the earlier year 1971-72 were also searched. Several bottle caps, empty bottles, plastic drums and essence bottles were recovered from such premises.

The house of Rulia Ram Appellant No. 7 was also searched on 14th April, 1972. Two bottles containing some liquid were recovered as a result of this search. On being analysed one of these bottles was found to contain ethyl alcohol and chloral hydrate while the other was found to contain methyl alcohal.

On 19th April, 1972 the house of Tula Ram PW (approver) was also searched. As a result of this search a bulk of articles used in the manufacture and bottling of illicit liquor were recovered from different portions of his house. These articles comprised of more than 4500 bottle caps of different brand, bottle labels, empty bottles, plastic beakers, essence bottles, liquid, an empty drum, cotton bags etc. As per report of the Chemical Examiner to whom samples of bottles of liquid and essence bottles were sent, the essences were usable for flavouring alcoholic beverages like Whisky, Rum, Khas. The colour contents were identified to be water soluble orange organic dye. No sample was found to contain methyl spirit.

The house of Bhagwan Das was searched, on 23rd April, 1972 and on such search 67 liquor bottles and 31 liquor nips were recovered from a trunk lying in that house. Samples were taken out of these bottles and sent for chemical analysis. Each sample was found to be diluted mixture of methyl and ethyl alcohol of equal proportion.

On the basis of the above mentioned evidence collected in the course of investigation, a common charge u/s 120B I.P.C. was framed against all the Appellants as also against Nand Lal and Pawan Kumar who have since been acquitted. This charge was in the following language:

I, R.S. Chopra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, hereby charge you Ramji Dass, Hukam Chand, Jai Pal, Yogesh Raj, Rajeshwar Parshad, Mangat Rai, Rulia Ram, Inder Sen, Krishan Raj, Bahadur, Bhagwan Dass, Nand Lal, Pawan Kumar accused that you along with Tula Ram approver and Ladho Ram and Ram Partap absconders in between 26th February, 1972 to 14th April, 1972 were parties to a criminal conspiracy to manufacture and sell adulterated liquor after preparing it from rectified and methylated spirit (which is poisonous) at country Liquor Vends, Gunughat and Katcha Johar at Nahan and country liquor vend at Sarahan'' and to cheat the purchaser of the liquor at the aforesaid vends by selling them spurious/poisonous liquor instead of genuine distillery liquor and sold the poisonous liquor prepared from methylated spirit to the purchasers knowing or having reason to believe that it was likely to cause the death and hurt to the purchasers of the poisonous liquor sold at the vends and that in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the deaths of Revinder Mohan, Mam Raj, Laxmi Chand alias Lachhman Dass, Sunder Singh, Kehar Singh, Sohnu, Prabhu, Mohan Lal and Smt. Rehmi and offence of causing hurt by means of administering poisonous liquor by causing hurt to Sarvshri Lekh Raj, Arun Kumar, Om Parkash, Ram Din, Hari Chand, Raja Ram, D.K. Khosla, Prem Chand, Avinash, Raju, Raj Kumar, Virender Kumar, Chuhar Singh, Piara Lal, K.S. Sindhu, Darshan Lal and Dunglu were committed and thus you all committed an offence punishable u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Session.

Mangat Rai Appellant No. 5, Rulia Ram Appellant No. 7, Krishan Raj Sood Appellant No. 11 and Nand Lal who were alleged to have sold, spurious liquor to different customers were charged under Sections 328, 420, 273 and 304 I.P.C. in respect of the sales made by them. The charges framed against all these Appellants were in similar language. A specimen of each of these charges is given below:

Specimen of charge u/s 273 I.P.C.:

�That you between ----------------------exposed for sale at country liquor vend---------------liquor prepared from methylated spirit, a poisonous drink and noxious to health and sold the same to----------------and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 273 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Session.�

Specimen of charge u/s 328, I.P.C.:

�That you on or about----------------at-----------------caused to be taken by--------------------poisonous liquor prepared from methylated spirit knowing to be likely that you would thereby cause hurt to the said------------------and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 328 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Session�.

Specimen of charge u/s 304, I.P.C.:

That you on or about------------ at------------------------committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing the death of------------------and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 304 I.P.C., and within the cognizance of the Court of Session.

Specimen of charge u/s 420, I.P.C.:

�That you on or about ----------- at---------------cheated Shri----------------by selling him spurious/poisonous liquor and thm dishonestly induced him to make payment of genuine country liquor and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cog nizance of the Court of Session.�

In respect of each charge framed against the above-mentioned three Appellants and Nand Lal under Sections 328, 420, 273 and 304 I.P.C. the other Appellants were charged for abetment of these offences. In other words all the Appellants were charged under Sections 273/109, 328/109, 420/ 109 and 304/109 I.P.C.

In addition all the Appellants along with Sarvshri Nand Lal and Pawan Kumar were charged u/s 61(1)(a), 61(2)(a) and 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. The charges under the Punjab Excise Act were framed in the following language:

I, R.S. Chopra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paonta Sahib charge you Sarvshri Ramji Das, Hukam Chand, Jai Pal, Yogesh Raj,Rajeshwar Parshad, Mangat Rai, Rulia Ram, Inder Sen, Krishan Raj, Bahadur, Bhagwan Dass, Nand Lal, Pawan Kumar that you alongwith Tula Ram approver and Ladho Ram and Ram Partap absconders were parties to a criminal conspiracy to manufacture and sell adulterated poisonous liquor at country liquor vends Gunughat and Kacha Johar at Nahan and Country Liquor Vend at Sarahan and in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy you manufactured on the night between 3rd April, 1972 and 4th April, 1972, liquor from rectified spirit at Gunughat and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 61(1)(a) read with Section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh and within the cognizance of Court of Session.

Secondly.-

That you all on the night intervening 8/9th April, 1972 manufactured liquor from methylated spirit at Gunughat and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 61(1)(a) read with Section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh and within the cognizance of Court of Session.

Thirdly.-

That you all between 4th April, 1972 to 14th April, 1972 at Nahan and Sarahan sold illicit liquor prepared from rectified spirit and methylated spirit to Ravinder Mohan, Mam Raj, Laxmi Chand, Dungla, Kamlinder Singh, Ranbir Singh, Lekh Raj, Arun Kumar, D.K. Khosla, Darshan Lal, Om Parkash, Ram Din, Prem Chand, Avinash, Verinder Kumar, Raj Kumar, Chuhar Singh, Pyare Lal, K.S. Sidhu and Hari Chand, Raja Ram and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 61(2)(a) lead with Section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh and within the cognizance of Court of Session.

Fourthly.-

That you all between 3rd April, 1972 & 23rd April, 1972 had kept at Nahan Tunki fitted with brass cork, Jerry canes of plastic, funnels, cotton, hydrometre, essences, colours, labels of different brands of liquor, capsules, empty bottles which materials implements and apparatus were being used for the purpose of manufacturing illicit liquor and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 61(1)(c) read with Section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh and within the cognizance of Court of Session.

Fifthly.-

That you between 9th April, 1972 and 18th April, 1972 were in possession of illicit liquor manufactured from methylated spirit in country liquor vends Gunughat Kacha Lohar at Nahan and country liquor vends, Sarahan and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 61(1)(a) read with Section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh and within the cognizance of Court of Session.

Sixthly.-

That you on 23rd April, 1972 three bags containing 67 bottles and 31 nips of illicit liquor containing methylated spirit were recovered from the house of Bhagwan Dass, Driver situated at Bara Ban (Nahan) and thereby you all committed an offence punishable u/s 61(1)(a) read with Section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh and within the cognizance of Court of Session.

The Appellants denied if they entered into any criminal conspiracy or if they ever manufactured or sold any spurious liquor.

The learned Sessions Judge, however, found that all these Appellants with the exception of Bahadur did enter into a criminal conspiracy along with Tula Ram P.W. (approver) and the two absconders on26th February, 1972, the object of the conspiracy being to manufacture illicit liquor out of rectified as also methylated spirit and that in furtherance of this conspiracy they actually prepared such illicit liquor by using rectified and methylated spirit on 3rd April, 1972 and 8th April, 1972 respectively. He further found that as a part of this conspiracy the spurious liquor so prepared was displayed for sale and sold at the three licensed country liquor vends of Appellants No. 1 to 6 and that the purchasers of such spurious liquor suffered from physical injuries after consumption of such liquor. One of the purchasers of this liquor viz. Ravinder Mohan had to meet his end on account of the consumption of such liquor. He further found that illicit liquor as also implements needed for the manufacture of such liquor were recovered from the possession of the Appellants.

On the basis of the conclusions drawn by him, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the various Appellants as under:

S. No. Nature of the offence for which convicted Names of the appellants convicted Nature of the sentence imposed

1 120B IPC All the appellants except Bahadur R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 except that in the case of Bhagwan Dass the fine imposed is Rs. 100.

2 273 IPC Mangat Rai, Rulia Ram, Krishan Raj Sood R.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500 in each case.

3 328 IPC Ditto R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500 in each case. R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500 in each case.

4 420 IPC Ditto R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500 in each case

5 304 IPC Krishan Raj Sood R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000

6 273/109 IPC All the appellants except Bahadur R.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500 in each case except that in the cases of Rulia Ram, Mangat Rai and Krishan Raj Sood the fine imposed is reduced to Rs. 100.

7 328/109 IPC Ditto R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500 in each case

8 420/109 IPC Ditto R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500 in each case. The amount of fine, however, was reduced to Rs. 100 in the eases of Mangat Rai, Rulia Ram and Krishan Raj Sood.

9 304/109 IPC AllAll the appellants except Bahadur dur and Krishan Raj Sood R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in each case.

10 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for Manufacturing illicit liquor on 3-4-1972 Inder Sen, Bahadur, Krishna Raj Sood, Rulia Ram R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in each case except that in the case of Bahadur the amount of fine imposed is Rs. 250

11 61(1)(a) read with Sec. 77 of the Punjab Excise Act for manufacturing illicit liquor on 3-4-1972 Ramji Das, Hukam Chand, Jai Paul, Rajeshwar Prasad, Mangat Rai and Vogesh Raj Fine of Rs. 1,000 in each case.

12 61(1)(a) of Pb. Excise Act for manufacturing illicit liquor on 8-4-1972 Ramji Das, Inder Sam, Bahadur, Krishan Raj Sood, Rulia Ram R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in each case except in the case of Bahadur in whose case the fine imposed is Rs. 250.

13 61(1)(a) read with Section 77 of Pb. Excise Act for manufacturing illicit liquor on 8-4-1972 Jai Paul, Rajeshwar Prasa Yogesh Raj, Mangat Rai, Hukam Chand Fine of Rs. 1,000 in each case

14 61(2Xa) of Pb. Excise Act for sale ofillicit liquor Rulia Ram, Mangat Rai, Krishan Raj Sood R.I. for 1 year and a fine of Rs. 500 in each case.

15 61(2)(a) read with Section 77 of Pb. Excise Act for sale of illicit liquor Ramji Das, Hukain Chand, Jai Paul, Rajeshwar Piasad, Mangat Rai and Yogesh Raj Fine of Rs. 1,000 in each case.

16 61(1)(a) of the Pb. Excise Act for bdngin possession of illicit liquor Bhagwan Das RI. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500.

All the accused persons were acquitted of the charge u/s 61(1)(c) for having been found in possession of implements used in manufacture of illicit liquor. They were also acquitted for the offence u/s 61(1)(a) for being found in possession of illicit liquor.

The various convictions and sentences recorded against the Appellants with the exception of the convictions and sentences recorded, against Sarvshri Rulia Ram, Mangat Rai and Krishan Raj Sud Appellants u/s 61(G)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and those recorded against Sarvshri Ramji Dass, Hukam Chand, Jai Paul, Rajeshwar Parshad, Mangat Rai and Yogesh Raj Appellants No. 1 to 6 u/s 61(2)(a) read with Section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act have been vehemently challenged by Shri O. N. Vohra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants.

The charge of conspiracy u/s 120B IPC which was a common charge against all the Appellants is obviously by far the most important charge. The success or failure of this charge would have a direct impact on all other charges pertaining to the offences under the Penal Code for which the Appellants stand convicted. It is, therefore, considered desirable and appropriate to examine the correctness 01 otherwise of the convictions u/s 120B, I.P.C.

A criminal conspiracy in terms of its definition f as found in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, is an agreement by two or more persons to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. The essence of this offence, therefore, is the agreement between the co-conspirators. An agreement necessarily implies a unity of design or purpose and a mutual understanding, direct or implied. In view of the very nature of the object of such like agreements, they are normally hatched in secrecy. Direct and express proof of a criminal conspiracy is accordingly seldom available. Inferences which could reasonably and legitimately be drawn from the proved conduct and acts of the co-conspirators would to a large extent furnish the basis of conviction on such a charge. Such inferences would, however, suffice to prove the charge of conspiracy only if it can be shown that the acts and conduct of the co-conspirators as proved on the record taken with other proved circumstances are incapable) of leading to any inference inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.

In the face of the language employed in the charge framed against the Appellants u/s 120B IPC, the prosecution, therefore, must prove in the instant case that there was an agreement between the Appellants to manufacture adulterated liquor from rectified and methylated spirit and to sell such liquor at different licensed country vends of Appellants No. 1 to 6 as genuine liquor.

The prosecution in order to prove the agreement as aforesaid, mainly relies upon the oral evidence of the approver Tula Ram who appeared as PW. 1. Corroboration to the approver''s evidence was sought to be supplied by the testimony of PW. 57 Duni Chand. The manner in which the evidence of an approver is to be appreciated and the value to be attached to such evidence has been the subject matter of discussion in several decisions of the Supreme Court. In Sarwan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, the Supreme Court made the following observations on this subject:

An approver is undoubtedly a competent witness under the Evidence Act. But the appreciation of his evidence has to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and that is a test which is common to all witnesses. If this test is satisfied the second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver''s evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. This test is special to the cases of weak or tainted evidence like that of the approver.

Every person who is a competent witness is not a reliable witness and the test of reliability has to be satisfied by an approver all the more before the question of corroboration of his evidence is considered by criminal Courts.

The above quoted observations of the Supreme Court were later explained in the case Major E.G. Barsay Vs. The State of Bombay, in the following language:

This Court could not have intended to lay down that the evidence of an approver and the corroborating pieces of evidence should be treated in two different compartments, that is to say, the Courts shall have first to consider the evidence of the approver dehors the corroborated pieces of evidence and reject it if it comes to the conclusion that his evidence is unreliable, but if it comes to the conclusion that it is reliable then it will have to consider whether that evidence is corroborated by any other evidence. This Court did not lay down any such proposition. In that case it happened that the evidence of the approver was so thoroughly discrepant that the Court thought that he was a wholly unreliable witness. But in most of the cases the said two aspects would be so interconnected that it would not be possible to give a separate treatment, for as often as not the reliability of an approver''s evidence, though not exclusively, would mostly depend upon the corroborative support it derives from other unimpeachable pieces of evidence.

This matter again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra, where the Court expressed itself in these words:

The law with regard to appreciation of approver''s evidence is based on the effect of Sections 133 and 114, illustration (b) of the Evidence Act, namely, that an accomplice is competent to depose but as a rule of caution it will be unsafe to convict upon his testimony alone. The warning of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence is therefore given when the evidence is that of an accomplice. The primary meaning of accomplice is any party to the crime charged and some one who aids and abets the commission of crime. The nature of corroboration is that it is confirmatory evidence and it may consist of the evidence of second witness or of circumstances like the conduct of the person against whom it is required. Corroboration must connect or tend to connect the accused with the crime. When it is said that the corroborative evidence must implicate the accused in material particulars it means that it is not enough that a piece of evidence tends to confirm the truth of a part of the testimony to be corroborated. That evidence must confirm that part of the testimony which suggests that the crime was committed by the accused. If a witness says that the accused and he stole the sheep and he put the skins in a certain place, the discovery of the skins in that place would not corroborate the evidence of the witness as against the accused. But if the skins were found in the accused''s house, this would corroborate because it would tend to confirm the statement that the accused had some hand in the theft.

The legal position in regard to the evidence of accomplices and approvers was once again stated by the Supreme Court in the case Dagdu and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, where the Court speaking through Y.V. Chandrachud, J. (as his Lordship then was) laid down the law on the subject in these words:

There is no antithesis between Section 133 and illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act because the Illustration only says that the Court ''may'' presume a certain state of affairs. It does not seek to raise a conclusive and irrebuttable presumption. Reading the two together the position which emerges is that though an accomplice is a competent witness and though a conviction may lawfully rest upon his uncorroborated testimony yet the Court is entitled to presume and may indeed be justified in presuming in the generality of cases that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of an accomplice unless that evidence is corroborated in material particulars, by which is meant that there has to be some independent evidence tending to incriminate the particular accused in the commission of the crime. It is hazardous, as a matter of prudence, to proceed upon the evidence of a self-confessed criminal, who, in so far as an approver is concerned, has to testify in terms of the pardon tendered to him. The risk involved in convicting an accused on the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated in material particulars, is so real and potent that what during the early development of law was felt to be a matter of prudence has been elevated by judicial experience into a requirement or rule of law. All the same, it is necessary to understand that what has hardened into a rule of law is not that the conviction is illegal if it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but that the rule of corroboration must be present to the mind of the Judge and that corroboration may be dispensed with only if the particular circumstances of a case make it safe to dispense with it.

The legal position that emerges, therefore, is that an approver is a competent witness. His evidence is not only admissible but can form the basis of conviction on a criminal charge even though uncorroborated. The Courts, however, should be reluctant to accept the evidence of an approver at its face value. They must scrutinise his evidence with abundant caution and look for independent corroboration, bearing always in mind the fact that he is a self condemned criminal and has entered into the witness box for a selfish end in order to perform his part of the bargain in which he earned his personal immunity from the crime committed by him and that he already stands committed to make a particular type of deposition incriminating his past associates. The antecedents of the approver, the nature of the crime to which he was a party, the role played by him in the commission of such crime, the reasons for and the circumstances under which he turned approver, the consistency or otherwise in the various statements made by him in the course of investigation and trial are some of the circumstances which need be taken into account in determining the credibility or otherwise of an approver. It is also desirable to take into consideration whether the story as revealed by the approver is natural and probable. Even if prima facie the evidence of the approver looks reliable and true, prudence based on judicial experience, requires that the Courts must look for independent corroboration before accepting and acting upon the testimony of an approver.

P.W. Tula Ram, the approver in the instant case, started his career as a school teacher. He was, however, not satisfied with this noble profession. He, therefore, joined a private firm of liquor contractors. Later he found a permanent assignment with Messrs Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., Solan, which is a company of repute. This place, namely, Solan Brewery was only 11 or 12 miles from his village. He joined Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. at a salary of Rs. 130 per mensem which salary was later raised to Rs. 220 per mensem when he resigned that post. In addition he was getting a bonus of Rs. 780 per year. He, however, preferred to join the private service of Shri Ramji Das at Nahan which is about 90 kilometers from his village at a fixed salary of Rs. 335 per mensem. The approver had come into touch with Ramji Das while working in the Mohan Meakin Breweries and he must be knowing about his dealing in illicit liquor. The approver thus voluntarily switched over to a life of crime after resigning a secured appointment with a company like Messrs Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. Though, according to him, there was no stipulation with Ramji Dass Appellant that the approver would assist his employer in the manufacture of illicit liquor, he concedes that he had been rendering every possible assistance to his employers in the manufacture of illicit liquor as also in the preparation of fake accounts and that too for no extra consideration. These antecedents of the approver need to be taken into account while assessing his testimony.

It being not the case of the approver either that he decided to divulge the truth to the police on 5th May, 1972 under some impulse of remorse or as a result of cool reflection by a penitent heart, it looks reasonable to assume that the approver stated about the conspiracy either under police coercion or under some allurement given to him by the police. Looking to the fact that this disclosure was made by the approver on the last day of his police remand, we may legitimately presume that he had successfully countered the police pressure. It, therefore, looks more probable that he made his statement under some allurement. The record would also support this theory. The marriage of the daughter of Tula Ram approver was fixed for 22nd May, 1972 and was to be celebrated in his village. This marriage was actually celebrated on the aforesaid date. Tula Ram, being a father was naturally very anxious that he should be present at the marriage ceremony. He was, however, then under arrest in connection with serious offences. He must have realized that it was not possible for him to participate in the marriage without the help of the police. He admits that a police party consisting of one Thanedar and two constables took him to his village on the night of 21st of May, 1972, to enable him to attend the wedding of his daughter. It may be mentioned that on 21st May, 1972 the approver was confined in judicial custody. He was taken from Nahan Jail in the after-noon of Cist May, 1972 in a truck to his village by the police. He was allowed to participate in the marriage of his daughter during the night intervening 21st/22nd May, 1972 and then produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Rajgarh on 22nd May, 1972. He admits that his village does not fall on Nahan-Rajgarh road. ? ? ? ? It is thus apparent from the statement of the approver himself that in infringement of the Jail Rules he, while in judicial custody, was surreptitiously taken to his village for attending the marriage of his daughter during the night intervening 2lst/22nd May, 1972. In these circumstances there is every reason to assume that the approver was extended a promise by the police that he would be allowed to participate in the marriage ceremony of his daughter which promise was faithfully kept by the police. It, therefore, looks reasonable to infer that it was the assurance extended to him that he would be allowed to participate in the marriage of his daughter coupled with the promise of pardon that allured the approver to become a police tool and make his statement incriminating his associates.

Tula Ram approver next endeavoured to show that in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, illicit liquor was actually manufactured by the Appellants or some of them on the nights of 3rd and 8th of April, 1972 from rectified and methylated spirit which was procured by Inder Sain and Ramji Dass Appellants. Such illicit liquor, according to the approver who is the solitary witness on this point, was manufactured in the Gunughat premises which Ramji Dass and other licensees had taken on lease for the licence year 1972-73. As per statement of the approver while manufacturing illicit liquor, the spirit used to be poured in a tank and then two-and-a-half to three times water was added to the spirit to bring down its strenght to the requisite degree. Colour and essences were then also mixed. A water tap was fixed at the bottom of the tank out of which the liquor was taken out. While filling the illicit liquor so prepared in the bottles, the same was passed through cotton kept in a funnel which served as a filter. Exhibit P. 21 is the steel tank which, according to the approver as also to Duni Chand P. W. 57 had been used for this process when such illicit liquor is alleged to have been prepared by the licensees in the Sunarghati premises during the licence year 1971-72. According to the approver, this steel tank Exhibit P-21 was later shifted to Gunughat premises and was used there for that very purpose. Now as per Memo Exhibit 68/A this tank Exhibit P.21 along with innumerable other articles connected with the manufacture of illicit liquor were recovered from the house of Tula Ram approver himself on 19th April, 1972. On the other hand no such incriminating material connected with the manufacture of illicit liquor was recovered from the Gunughat premises where, according to the approver the illicit liquor was manufactured by the Appellants on 3rd and 8th of April, 1972. On these admitted and proved facts, the only logical conclusion is that if at all any illicit liquor was prepared in April, 1972, that is, during the licence year 1972-73, the same must have been prepared at the house of Tula Ram approver since all the relevant material required for that purpose was recovered only from his house.

Thus from whatever angle we try to assess the evidence of the approver, the same looks replete, with discrepancies and therefore, deserves no credence whatever.

Now it is one of the well recognized principles of criminal law that a conviction for a criminal charge can be sustained only if there is a proof so strong and convincing as would convince the conscience of the Court that what it concludes must have necessarily happened and that the proof adduced in support of the charge is incapable of being explained in any other manner consistent with the innocence of the accused. It may further be observed that the more unnatural and improbable is the prosecution version, the more convincing and strong should be the nature of proof required to establish it.

In view of the prosecution evidence adduced in support of the charge of criminal conspiracy in the instant case and my observations earlier made with respect to the testimony of P.Ws. Tula Ram and Duni Chand, it looks reasonable to conclude that so far as this charge is concerned there is practioally no evidence from the prosecution side which could ''inspire some confidence. The conviction of the Appellants iunder Section 120B I.P.C, therefore, cannot be sustained and must be quashed.

The Appellants Rulia Ram, Mangat Rai and Krishan Raj Sud have next been convicted for the offence u/s 61(2)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for the sale of illicit liquor. Appellants No. 1 to 6 have been convicted for the offence u/s 61(2)(a) read, with Section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act for such sales of illicit liquor made by their employees/agents. Shri O.N. Vohra, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, very fairly conceded that in view of the overwhelming evidence in support of these charges, the convictions of the Appellants named above are fully justified.

In the circumstances all that the prosecution can be said to have proved is that a box containing 67 bottles and 31 nips of illicit liquor was found lying in the family house of Bhagwan Dass which belonged, to his father and in which were living his father Mittar Singh, his mother as also his brother. As already observed, in the case of a person charged u/s 61 of the Punjab Excise Act for having been found in possession of illicit liquor something more must be proved than that the illicit liquor had been found in his premises. That something more is obviously lacking in the instant case. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge that Bhagwan Das Appellant was found in possession of illicit liquor are not, therefore, justified. This conviction is also, therefore, quashed.

This appeal is thus partly accepted and the convictions and sentences recorded against Sarvshri Rulia Ram, Mangat Rai and Krishan Raj Sood Appellants, for the offence u/s 61(2)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for sale of illicit liquor and those recorded against Sarvshri Ramji Das, Hukam Chand, Jai Paul, Rajeshwar Prashad, Mangat Rai and Yogesh Raj u/s 61(2)(a) read with Section 77 of the Punjab Excise Act are maintained. The rest of the convictions and sentences recorded against all the Appellants are quashed. Sarvshri Rulia Ram, Mangat Rai and Krishan Raj Sood Appellants are directed to surrender to their bails within one week and to serve out the remaining part of their sentences as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge.