Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Violent Attack Case: R. Baiju vs. State of Kerala (2025)

Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2025

Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Did instigation outside a house during a violent attack make one liable for the consequences? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of R. Baiju vs. State of Kerala, concerning a deadly altercation that resulted in one death and injuries to three others. The court examined the role of the accused, R. Baiju, in instigating the attack and upheld his conviction. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

Case Background

The case originated from an altercation that escalated into a violent attack. On the day of the incident, the accused, R. Baiju, along with others, went to the house of the deceased to sell coir mats manufactured by Kudumbasree, a self-help group. The deceased refused to purchase the mats despite R. Baiju’s insistence. Enraged, R. Baiju threw a mat at the deceased, leading to a heated exchange. Later that evening, during a Ward Council Meeting, the deceased’s son, PW2, raised a query regarding the coercive sale of coir mats, which further aggravated the situation.

In the night, accused 1 to 4, allegedly along with A5 and R. Baiju, went to the house of the deceased. Accused 1 to 4 unleashed a frontal attack on the inmates, resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to his son and daughter-in-law. R. Baiju was accused of standing outside the house and exhorting the attackers to kill the inmates.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted all the accused under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 427, 449 & 302 read with Sections 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. R. Baiju, accused of conspiracy, was sentenced to death. In appeal, the High Court acquitted the fifth accused and modified the conviction of accused No.1 to 4, altering the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of IPC. The High Court convicted R. Baiju under Sections 323, 324, 427, 450 and 304 Part II of IPC read with Section 120 B of IPC.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):

• Section 143, IPC: Punishment for unlawful assembly.
• Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 323, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 324, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 427, IPC: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.
• Section 449, IPC: House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death.
• Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
• Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 120B, IPC: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
• Section 304 Part II, IPC: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
• Section 34, IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 450, IPC: House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life.
• Section 161, Cr.P.C.: Examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 164, Cr.P.C.: Recording of confessions and statements.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (R. Baiju):

• R. Baiju was wrongly implicated as the main conspirator without joining the frontal attack.
• PWs 1 to 3 did not initially name R. Baiju in their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., including him only later in statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
• Reliance on PW7’s testimony is untenable due to his rivalry with R. Baiju.
• None of the accused carried weapons into the house; the wooden logs were already present at the scene.
• The prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy theory and common intention under Section 34 IPC.
• The High Court erred in convicting under Section 304 Part II IPC, as no knowledge that the act is likely to cause death can be attributed to R. Baiju.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Kerala):

• The incident in the afternoon and the Ward Council Meeting established the motive for the attack.
• R. Baiju’s presence in the vicinity of the crime scene with the other accused was established.
• PW7’s testimony provided a physical manifestation of the conspiracy.
• There was a conscious attempt to divert the investigation and protect R. Baiju, an influential political leader.
• R. Baiju had the knowledge that the attack could lead to death and actively instigated it.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was correct in convicting the appellant (A6) under Section 304 Part II read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The court relied on the following authorities:

• State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to emphasize that even if the investigation is suspect, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized meticulously to ensure that criminal justice is not compromised.
• State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253 (Supreme Court of India): This case was referred to highlight that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, and evidence of common intention is inferred from acts or words of the conspirators.

Judgment

The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of R. Baiju and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 (Supreme Court of India): The High Court rightly relied on this authority to find that 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.
• State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253 (Supreme Court of India): 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.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The motive arising from the initial altercation and the Ward Council Meeting.
• The established presence of R. Baiju at the crime scene.
• The testimony of PW7, which provided a physical manifestation of the conspiracy.
• The conscious attempt to divert the investigation and protect R. Baiju.
• R. Baiju’s knowledge that the attack could lead to death and his active instigation of the attack.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the High Court was correct in convicting the appellant (A6) under Section 304 Part II read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Flowchart:

Start –> Motive Established (Altercation + Ward Council Meeting) –> R. Baiju’s Presence at Crime Scene –> PW7’s Testimony (Physical Manifestation of Conspiracy) –> Attempt to Divert Investigation –> R. Baiju’s Knowledge & Instigation –> Conclusion: Conviction Upheld

Key Takeaways

• Active instigation during a crime can lead to conviction, even without direct participation in the act.
• Attempts to subvert investigations can be considered as evidence against the accused.
• The presence of motive and conspiracy can strengthen the prosecution’s case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that active instigation and presence at the scene of crime, coupled with prior motive and conspiracy, can establish culpability under Section 304 Part II read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This reinforces the principle that individuals who instigate or conspire to commit a crime can be held liable for the consequences, even if they do not directly participate in the act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of R. Baiju, affirming the High Court’s decision. The judgment underscores the importance of establishing motive, conspiracy, and active instigation in cases involving criminal liability. The court’s analysis of the evidence and circumstances surrounding the incident highlights the culpability of individuals who contribute to the commission of a crime, even if they are not directly involved in the act itself.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Law
  • Conspiracy
  • Homicide
  • Instigation

FAQ

1. What does this judgment mean for individuals who instigate crimes?

   This judgment clarifies that individuals who instigate a crime can be held liable for the consequences, even if they do not directly participate in the act. The court emphasized that active instigation, coupled with motive and conspiracy, can establish culpability.

2. How does the court view attempts to subvert investigations?

   The court views attempts to subvert investigations as evidence against the accused. In this case, the court noted that there was a conscious attempt to divert the investigation and protect R. Baiju, which further strengthened the prosecution’s case.

3. What is the significance of establishing motive and conspiracy in criminal cases?

   Establishing motive and conspiracy is crucial in criminal cases as it helps to establish the intent and involvement of the accused. In this case, the court relied on the motive arising from the initial altercation and the Ward Council Meeting, as well as the conspiracy between the accused, to uphold the conviction.