Criminal Justice Must Not Be Rendered a Casualty’: Supreme Court Upholds Conspiracy Conviction in R. Baiju v. State of Kerala

Summary of the Judgment

• Case Title: R. Baiju v. The State of Kerala

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Date of Judgment: 16 April 2025

• Coram: Hon'ble Mr Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon'ble Mr Justice K. Vinod Chandran

• Advocates: Sh. Abhilash M.R. for the petitioner

• Relevant Acts & Sections:

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 427, 449, 450, 302, 304 Part II, 120B, 149, 34

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 161 and 164

• Key Cited Judgments:

  • State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715

  • State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in R. Baiju v. State of Kerala offers an instructive exposition of criminal conspiracy, the probative value of delayed witness statements, and the doctrine of parity in sentencing. Delivered on 16 April 2025, this judgment upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, the sixth accused (A6), under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 304 Part II read with Section 120B.

Contextual Background

The incident that catalysed the trial stemmed from a relatively minor dispute concerning the sale of coir mats by a local Kudumbasree unit. What began as a commonplace altercation spiralled into a violent assault leading to the death of one person and injuries to several others. The prosecution alleged that the attack was a result of political vendetta fuelled by the coercive sale practices of Kudumbasree products, promoted under local political patronage.

A6, a prominent municipal councillor and leader in the ruling political party, was alleged to be the principal conspirator who incited the attack, though he did not physically partake in the assault. The trial court convicted all accused under various IPC sections including 302 read with 149 and 120B. A6 was sentenced to death. On appeal, the High Court modified A6’s conviction to 304 Part II read with 120B IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, which the Supreme Court has now affirmed.

Key Legal Issues and Analysis

1. Parity of Acquittal: Similar Roles, Dissimilar Outcomes?

The principal argument of the defence revolved around parity—specifically, the acquittal of A5 who allegedly played a similar role as A6. The Supreme Court dismissed this contention:

“The culpability of A6 to be roped in under Section 120B is quite evident; his presence at the scene of occurrence established by the ocular testimony, which unlike A5... could not be explained by A6; clinching his culpability.”

This pronouncement reinforces that mere similarity in roles is not a sufficient ground for parity; rather, the totality of circumstances, including presence, conduct, and influence, must be scrutinised. A5’s acquittal was justified on the grounds of weak identification and natural presence at the crime scene, which was his neighbourhood. A6, however, had no such justification and was found to have actively incited the accused.

2. Delayed Statements under Section 164 CrPC

Another contention raised was the delay in naming A6 by key witnesses. The statements under Section 164 were recorded only after initial omissions under Section 161. The Court, however, highlighted the deliberate subversion of investigation due to political influence:

“There was a conscious attempt to divert the investigation and frustrate the prosecution, especially against A6 who is attested to be an influential political leader.”

The fact that witnesses themselves had to request the magistrate to record their statements properly under Section 164 speaks volumes about the initial suppression of facts. This judgment is a reminder that delay in naming an accused is not fatal when satisfactorily explained and corroborated by subsequent credible testimony.

3. Doctrine of Conspiracy: Proving the Invisible

Citing State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, the Court reiterated the complexity of proving conspiracy:

“By the very nature of the offence of conspiracy, being hatched in secrecy, no evidence of the common intention of the conspirators can be normally produced before Court.”

The prosecution successfully established a chain of events—an altercation in the afternoon, a public dispute in the evening, and an assault at night. This continuum, coupled with the presence of A6 near the crime scene and his exhortation to 'kill them', satisfied the requirement of an overt act in furtherance of a common design.

4. The Probity of Evidence and Biased Investigation

In State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, it was held that even where the investigation is biased or lacking in probity, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinised meticulously. The Supreme Court applied this principle judiciously. Though the FIR and initial police statements excluded A6, the corroborative statements of multiple independent witnesses—including neighbours, municipal officials, and even a rival party member—reinforced the prosecution’s case.

“Even when the probity of investigation is suspect, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinised meticulously to ensure that criminal justice is not rendered a causality.”

5. Mens Rea Under Section 304 Part II IPC

The transition from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II was another vital aspect. The Court observed that A6 had the knowledge, if not the intention, that the attack could result in death. The wooden logs used in the assault were picked up from the premises, not brought as weapons, which possibly mitigated the intent but not the knowledge of consequences.

“A6 definitely had the knowledge that the attack... is likely to cause death... carried out under his watchful eyes.”

This underscores the nuanced difference between Sections 299 and 300 IPC, with emphasis on knowledge rather than intention as the threshold for conviction under Section 304 Part II.

Concluding Observations

The Supreme Court's decision in R. Baiju exemplifies a measured judicial approach that balances evidentiary inconsistencies with the broader canvas of justice delivery. It reaffirms several essential legal principles:

• Conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and chain of events;

• Influence and political clout cannot be shields against prosecution;

• Delays in witness statements are not necessarily fatal when contextually justified;

• Equality before law does not imply identical treatment in dissimilar factual matrices.

In closing, the judgment serves as a valuable precedent in analysing politically sensitive criminal cases, where the truth is often obfuscated by systemic suppression and community fear. It reflects judicial sensitivity to grassroots justice, especially when institutional integrity is compromised.