Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to a then Municipal Councillor and the Chairman of the Municipal Standing Committee, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for an attack on the family of the deceased following an argument on sale of coir mats made by a self-help group.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran found absolutely no reason to interfere with the Kerala High Court's judgment which had modified conviction of appellant R Baiju for the offence of murder and the awarding of the death sentence by the trial court for being the main conspirator.

The appellant was a Municipal Councillor and the Chairman of the Municipal Standing Committee, and an influential leader of the political party which ruled both the State and Municipality of Cherthala. All the accused were active members of the very same political party.

The apex court relied upon State of Tamil Nadu Vs Nalini (1999), which 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.  

Examining the appeal only filed by the appellant, the bench noted an altercation occurred between him and the deceased in the afternoon and another wordy duel in public, on the same evening, with the son of the deceased.

"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 son of the deceased was abrasive and violent," the bench said.

The court noted that on the same evening, the appellant 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 the son of the deceased from outside the house when he, unsuspectingly, invited them inside. The accused entered the house and unleashed a frontal attack on the family members with wooden logs. 

Even if it was found that the accused did not come with deadly weapons, before entering the house, they picked up the wooden logs. They entered the house on 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, the appellant had seen the accused picking up the wooden logs and entering the house and also had exhorted them from outside the house. He 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, the bench said.

"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 the appellant, at whose instance and connivance as also active instigation, the attack was carried out," the bench said.   

The court noted that a neighbour of the deceased who participated in the Ward Council Meeting held on November 29, 2009 also deposed that there were arguments between the son of the deceased and the appellant, in the meeting when the son raised a question of compulsory sale of coir mats, then the appellant again asked him to burn the coir mat, if he did not want it. 

However, the fact remained that there was sufficient corroboration for the incident which happened in the afternoon and in the evening at the Ward Council Meeting, which led to the attack on the family members of the deceased. The motive alleged, hence stands established, the bench said. 

In the case, the deceased was admitted to Medical College, Kottayam on November 29, 2009, with a severe head injury and succumbed on December 8, 2009.

The court examined the matter only with respect to the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II read with Section 120B IPC and the other provisions, and did not deal with the alteration of sentence from Section 302 to 304B Part II, since there was no appeal as of now from the State or the injured victims. 

With respect to the appellant, the court noted the testimony of the prosecution witness was that he stood outside the house and exhorted the accused 1 to 4 who entered the house to ‘kill them’.

"The presence of the appellant spoken of by the prosecution witness was disbelieved by the High Court, since even in the FIR she had not stated so. However, this has to be considered along with the biased investigation, highlighted by the High Court itself. The appellant was an influential political leader of the ruling party and his name was purposefully not included in the array of accused," the bench noted. 

The court found that the earlier incidents that happened in the afternoon and the evening which led to the attack at night stood established. The presence of the appellant in the vicinity of the crime scene, prior to the crime, in the company of the other accused, also stood established. 

In the case, the bench said, the motive and presence of the appellant at the scene of crime, was established. The motive arose from the incident which happened in the afternoon, where ensued a wordy altercation by the appellant with the deceased; which was followed up by another, in the Ward Council Meeting, on the evening of the same day, with the son of the deceased. 

"We cannot find the evidence against A5 (acquitted by the High Court) and the appellant to be identical and the culpability of the appellant 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 the appellant; clinching his culpability," the bench said.             

The court also considered the contention of the appellant that he was added later, which raised a reasonable doubt as to his involvement in the incident that occurred at night. 

"Here we have to notice 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," the bench said.

Case Title: K Baiju Vs The State of Kerala