Malwani hooch tragedy: Court highlights poor control of State over illicit liquor dens

The court observed that although the deaths took place due to consumption of liquor containing methyl alcohol, there was no evidence to prove intentional use of the chemical or that it was a poison, as defined in the Poisons Act, 1919

MUMBAI: While sentencing the four convicts in the 2015 Malwani hooch tragedy, in which 106 persons lost their lives and several others were blinded, the sessions court expressed concern over the mushrooming of illicit liquor dens and the lack of state control over the same. The court observed that although the deaths took place due to consumption of liquor containing methyl alcohol, there was no evidence to prove intentional use of the chemical or that it was a poison, as defined in the Poisons Act, 1919.

HT Image

The 241-page judgement sentencing bootleggers Raju Tapkar aka Raju Langda and Donald Patel, country liquor distributor Francis Thomas D’mello and the prime hooch supplier Mansur Khan aka Atiq aka Rahul Bhai to ten years rigorous imprisonment became available on Saturday.

“I am convinced that these four accused were having knowledge about the fatal consequences of use of methyl alcohol and therefore it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deaths of all many persons (out of 106 persons) is the result of consumption of illicit liquor containing methyl alcohol, served to some of them by the accused,” noted additional sessions judge SD Tawshikar.

The court observed that nearly all the deceased and injured were addicted to illicit liquor and belonged to lower income strata, residing in slums of Malad. “This case highlights the poor state of control and regulations over the illicit liquor business. It depicts the mushroom growth of illicit liquor dens in the vicinity of Malvani, a part of Mumbai city,” the judgement said.

The incident dates to June 18, 2015, when residents of Laxmi Nagar slums in Malvani developed respiratory problems, nausea and diarrhoea after consuming contaminated liquor. Within a week, 106 of them died, while around 40 persons who were hospitalised survived the tragedy. Over a year after the incident, the Mumbai crime branch arrested 14 people, including suppliers, distributors and dealers of spurious liquor containing industrial methanol.

The prosecution claimed that the main thrust of evidence was on the transportation of barrels and drums of chemicals through Bhavna roadways and Sachin Transport. Special public prosecutor Pradip Gharat alleged that all the accused were fully aware that the illicit liquor contained a poisonous substance, namely methyl alcohol or methanol, in dangerous proportion.

The defense counsels, however, strongly opposed the allegations and argued that there was hardly anything on record to infer existence of intention or knowledge to cause death of persons consuming this liquor. “No liquor vendor would ever serve poison to his customers with culpable knowledge to cause their death. Though the deaths might have been due to consumption of poisonous illicit liquor, the same cannot mean that the deaths are homicidal,” they added.

The doctor examined during trial clarified that while the presence of 0.025mg methanol per 100 ml of liquor or above could be fatal, the quantity of the chemical in the liquor consumed by the victims was far higher. He deemed all the deaths unnatural, the cause being “methyl alcohol poisoning”.

The court, however, observed that there was no evidence to prove intentional use of the chemical by the accused; nor could methyl alcohol be categorised as a “poison” as defined under the Poison Act, 1919.

The court also outlined the role of each convict. On Raju Langda, the court noted that the testimony of relatives and family members of the persons who drank illicit liquor was sufficient to prove that some of the deceased had visited his den.

Donald Patel’s counsel stated that there was no sufficient evidence to prove his client’s indulgence in selling the liquor, nor could he be singled out as an illicit liquor vendor in the absence of any direct and admissible evidence. Francis D’mello’s counsel claimed there was no evidence showing his client’s indulgence in the illicit liquor business.

The fourth convict, Mansoor Khan, was alleged to be the main accused and had played a pivotal role in the crime, as he had knowledge that the chemical procured and supplied to the illicit liquor vendors was, in fact, dangerous and poisonous. Yet, for the sake of wrongful gain, he supplied the chemical, ultimately causing death of hundreds of innocent persons. Advocate Diwakar Rai, representing Khan, submitted that Khan’s prosecution was based on some mistaken identity or some confusion as there was no evidence to show that he was in contact with the accused from Gujarat.

“There seems aspect of criminal conspiracy between few accused about procurement and sale of illicit liquor containing chemical namely Methanol. It is clear from oral and documentary evidence that accused No 8 (Khan) procured and supplied chemical barrels to accused No 5 (D’mello). Accused No 5 (D’mello) further supplied the illicit liquor containing chemical to accused No 1 (Langda) and 3 (Patel),” additional sessions judge SD Tawshikar said after hearing all the contentions at length, noting that the entire work cannot be done without there being prior agreement between the accused.