The case concerns R. Baiju (A6), who was convicted of conspiracy and abetment in a fatal assault. The proceedings outline a commonplace altercation that escalated into a deadly attack, leading to a conviction for murder. The appeal specifically addresses A6’s role, arguing for his acquittal based on lack of direct involvement and a biased initial investigation. The court ultimately upholds the High Court’s conviction and sentence for A6, citing his established motive, presence at the crime scene, and instigation of the attack.
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 450 read with Section 120B, Section 304 Part II read with Section 120B, Section 323, 324, 427 – Culpable Homicide – Nature of offence – Held that 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 offence can be proved largely by inferences from the acts committed or words spoken by the conspirators in pursuance of a common intention – That an altercation occurred between A6 and the deceased in the afternoon and another wordy duel in public, on the same evening, with PW2, the son of the deceased has been established by the prosecution – The reaction of A6 in the afternoon, to the refusal of the deceased to purchase a coir mat and in the evening, when the question of compulsory sale of coir mats was raised by PW2, was abrasive and violent – On the same day evening, A6 was found with the other accused near the house of the deceased, a few minutes before the crime occurred in the house of the deceased – The accused had called out PW2 from the outside the house when PW2, unsuspectingly invited them inside – The accused belonged to a political party, whose leader was A6 – Accused 1 to 4 entered the house and unleashed a frontal attack on the family members with wooden logs – Construction work was going on in the house of the deceased and there were wooden logs lying in the premises.
Held that even if it is found that the accused did not come with deadly weapons, before entering the house they picked up the wooden logs, within the eye-sight of A6 – They entered the house of PW2 on his invitation and unleashed an attack without any provocation from the inmates of the house – Obviously, in retaliation of the incidents that happened earlier, on the same day A6 had seen the accused picking up the wooden logs and entering the house and also had exhorted them from outside the house – A6 definitely had the knowledge that the attack perpetrated on the accused could lead to death and the attack was carried out under his watch-full eyes – As rightly held by the High Court, though the heightened intention to cause death cannot be attributed in the incident, the knowledge that the attack, as established in the trial, is likely to cause death can definitely be pinned down on A6, at whose instance and connivance as also active instigation, the attack was carried out – Find absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of A6 and dismiss the Special Leave Petition.
(Para 18)
R. Baiju. V. State Of Kerala
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 488: (DoJ 16-04-2025)
