Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part II IPC: Knowledge of Likely Death Can Be Pinned Down on Appellant: Defective Investigation No Ground to Discard Credible Evidence
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia upheld the conviction and sentence of an individual under Sections 304 Part II, 323, 324, 427, and 450 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 120B. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s judgment, affirming the accused’s culpability as a conspirator in a retaliatory attack that led to a fatality and multiple injuries. The Court held that the knowledge of likely death could be attributed to the accused and recorded that the High Court’s findings warranted no interference. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The incident in question arose from a sequence of escalating confrontations on a single day. The accused, including the appellant (A6), were politically affiliated and closely connected, with A6 holding the position of Chairman of the Municipal Standing Committee in Cherthala. The first altercation occurred in the afternoon at the deceased’s residence, involving the attempted sale of coir mats by A6 and others, purportedly on behalf of Kudumbasree, a state-supported self-help group initiative. The deceased declined the purchase, which provoked an angry reaction from A6, who flung a coir mat at the deceased and allegedly told him to burn it if he did not want it.
Following this, PW2, the son of the deceased, was directed to raise a query in the Ward Council Meeting regarding whether such purchases were compulsory. That evening, during the meeting, PW2 raised the issue, leading to another confrontation with A6. Multiple witnesses, including PW5 and PW13, corroborated this interaction, although the degree of hostility perceived varied.
Later that night, accused 1 to 4 allegedly arrived at the deceased’s home and called out for PW2. Upon his invitation, they entered the house and launched a violent assault using wooden logs that were available at the scene due to ongoing construction work. PW1 (daughter-in-law), PW2 (son), and PW3 (wife) of the deceased were all attacked. PW3 intervened to protect a child who was nearly harmed by A3. The deceased came out during the commotion and was fatally attacked by A1 and A2 with wooden logs. The post-mortem (Exhibit P5) and the testimony of PW10 confirmed the death was due to head injuries consistent with the use of such weapons.
While accused 1 to 4 directly executed the attack, A6’s role was alleged to be that of instigator and conspirator. PW1 testified to hearing A6, standing outside, exhorting the attackers to "kill them." Several other prosecution witnesses corroborated A6’s presence during the afternoon altercation and the meeting, and some attested to his presence near the crime scene before the attack. PW7, a neighbour with a history of political rivalry with A6, stated seeing all six accused gathered near the house of A5 shortly before the assault. Although declared hostile, PW4 confirmed the earlier confrontation and aftermath.
The initial investigation was criticized for being partial and politically influenced. Multiple investigating officers handled the case. PW17 and PW18, the earlier investigating officers, did not record any reference to A6 in witness statements. It was only after a complaint by PW1 to PW3, alleging that their statements were improperly recorded, that PW19 initiated a fresh round of statements under Section 164 CrPC. Judicial Magistrate PW20 confirmed that PW1 explicitly stated her earlier account was misrepresented.
Despite initial inconsistencies, the High Court accepted the revised testimonies, particularly in view of the circumstances indicating manipulation of the investigation process. The trial court had convicted all the accused under multiple sections, including Section 302 IPC. On appeal, the High Court modified the convictions for A1 to A4 to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. A6 was convicted under Sections 304 Part II, 323, 324, 427, and 450 IPC, all read with Section 120B IPC. He was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II and 5 years under Section 450, with fines and default sentences.
A5, who was similarly placed, was acquitted. A6 contended that the evidence against him was identical to that against A5 and therefore parity in acquittal should apply. The appellant further argued that key witnesses did not originally name him and that reliance on PW7, a political rival, was unwarranted.
The Court recorded that “a very common place altercation escalated into a terrorizing attack leading to the death of a person and injuries to three others.” It noted that although A6 did not participate in the physical attack, his role in instigating the violence was evident. The Bench observed that “the presence of A6 in the vicinity of the crime scene, prior to the crime, in the company of the other accused, also stood established.”
Addressing the appellant’s argument for parity with A5, the Court stated: “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.” Unlike A5, A6’s presence at the crime scene was not incidental but deliberate, and his instigation from outside the house was corroborated by multiple witnesses.
The Court examined the argument about delayed naming of A6, and stated: “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, by none other than one of the Investigating Officers (I.O.), PW18.” It emphasized that “the inconsistencies in the FIR, based on the first information of PW1 and the statements recorded by PW17 and PW18 are hence inconsequential.”
Regarding the credibility of PW7, the Court held: “PW7, who admitted his alliance to the rival political party and the case with A6... was a truthful witness, as found by the High Court.” It noted that cross-examination failed to undermine his testimony effectively.
On the larger question of conspiracy, the Bench cited precedent and recorded: “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 motive and instigation were evident from A6’s actions earlier in the day and his presence during the attack.
In concluding its examination, the Court found: “A6 definitely had the knowledge that the attack perpetrated on the accused could lead to death and the attack was carried out under his watchful eyes.” While it stopped short of attributing a direct intent to kill, the Court found: “the knowledge that the attack, as established in the trial, is likely to cause death can definitely be pinned down on A6.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal filed by the sixth accused held no merit and warranted dismissal. It unequivocally upheld the decision of the High Court with the following directive:
“We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of A6 and dismiss the Special Leave Petition.”
The Court clarified that the case had been adjourned at the initial stage to enquire whether the State intended to challenge the High Court’s verdict. Upon receiving no instructions from the State, the Bench proceeded with hearing the appeal. It noted:
“We make clear this appeal is only with respect to the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II read with Section 120B IPC and the other provisions, as noticed above and we do not deal with the alteration of sentence from Section 302 to 304B Part II, since there is no appeal as of now from the State or the injured victims.”
The Court disposed of all pending applications. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304 Part II read with 120B IPC, 323, 324, 427, and 450 IPC, along with the prescribed sentences, remain valid and executable.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner(s): M/s. M R Law Associates, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR; Mrs. Anu K Joy, Advocate; Mr. Alim Anvar, Advocate; Mr. Santhosh K, Advocate
Case Title: R. Baiju v. The State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 488
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 12926 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
