Knowledge That Attack Is Likely To Cause Death Can Be Pinned Down: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Ex-CPI(M) Leader In Congress Activist’s Murder Case

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of R. Baiju, a former CPI(M) [Communist Party of India (Marxist)] local leader and Chairman of the Cherthala Municipal Standing Committee in a case involving the murder of a Congress activist.

The Court was deciding a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Baiju, challenging the Judgment of the Kerala High Court, by which he was convicted under Sections 323, 324, 427, 450, and 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 120B of the IPC.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “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.”

The Bench took note of the fact that Baiju had the knowledge that the attack perpetrated on the deceased could lead to death and the attack was carried out under his watch-full eyes.

Advocate Abhilash M.R. represented the Petitioner/Accused while AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker represented the Respondent/State.

Case Background

A very common place altercation escalated into a terrorizing attack leading to the death of a person and injuries to three others. The investigation changed hands several times, which also had political overtones, despite which the prosecution resulted in the conviction by the Trial Court of all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 427, 449, and 302 read with Sections 149 and 120B of the IPC. The sixth accused i.e., the Appellant-Baiju who was roped in on the charge of conspiracy, for the earlier incidents, his presence at the crime scene and the exhortation made to kill, was handed down the sentence of death, being the main conspirator and the others were sentenced to imprisonment for life.

In Appeal, the High Court acquitted the fifth accused and modified the conviction of Accused Nos. 1-4 and altered the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of IPC and convicted the sixth accused, i.e., the Appellant under Sections 323, 324, 427, 450, and 304 Part II of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC. The Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years together with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and also sentenced to RI for 10 years read with Section 120B of IPC with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Being aggrieved by his conviction, he went to the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, said, “We cannot find the evidence against A5 and A6 to be identical and 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, who had his house in the vicinity, could not be explained by A6; clinching his culpability.”

The Court remarked that there was a conscious attempt to divert the investigation and frustrate the prosecution, especially against the Appellant who is attested to be an influential political leader, by none other than one of the Investigating Officers (IO).

“The inconsistencies in the FIR, based on the first information of PW1 and the statements recorded by PW17 and PW18 are hence inconsequential. This also has to be viewed in the context of PW21, who eventually filed the charge sheet, having failed to include PW19, I.O. who initiated steps to record Section 164 statements of PW1 to 3, as a witness. It was at the instance of the Court, PW19 was examined in the trial”, it further noted.

The Court referred to the Judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999) in which it was 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”, it added.

The Court also observed that the reaction of the Appellant 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 the Complainant, was abrasive and violent.

“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”, it said.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP and refused to interfere with the conviction and sentence.

Cause Title- R. Baiju v. The State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 488)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Abhilash M.R.

Respondent: AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocates Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, and Santhosh K.

Click here to read/download the Judgment