R. Baiju v. State of Kerala
Background
A quarrel began when the sixth accused (a local Municipal Councillor and an influential ruling-party leader) tried to sell coir mats made by a women's self-help group to the family of the eventual victim, leading to a heated public argument at a Ward Council meeting the same evening. That night, several co-accused attacked the family at their home with wooden logs, killing the family patriarch and injuring two others, while the appellant allegedly stood outside and exhorted the attackers to "kill them." The trial court sentenced the appellant to death as the main conspirator; the Kerala High Court, on appeal, acquitted a similarly-placed co-accused but convicted the appellant of lesser offences including culpable homicide not amounting to murder (via conspiracy) rather than murder, and reduced his sentence to rigorous imprisonment.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's argument that he deserved acquittal like the co-accused who was let off, noting his situation was factually different: that co-accused had an innocent reason (his own nearby house) to be at the scene, and eyewitness testimony placing the appellant there and describing his exhortation to attack was consistent even after allowing for a biased initial investigation (in which police were found to have initially shielded the politically influential appellant). The Court held that conspiracy, being hatched in secrecy, can be proved through inference from conduct and words, and found that the daytime altercation, the public evening dispute, the appellant's presence with the attackers moments before the assault, and his shouted exhortation together established his knowledge that the attack was likely to cause death. Finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's careful, detailed judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Lesson Learnt
Even where a police investigation is shown to have been compromised or biased (here, due to the accused's political influence), courts will carefully scrutinize the remaining evidence rather than automatically acquit, and a conspiracy charge can be proved through circumstantial conduct and words spoken, without direct proof of an actual agreement.