“Parity Is Not a Shield”: Supreme Court Re‑affirms Conspiracy Convictions Despite Investigational Lapses – A Commentary on R. Baiju v. State of Kerala (2025 INSC 488)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in R. Baiju v. State of Kerala marks an important clarification on two intertwined questions of criminal jurisprudence:

1. Whether an accused can claim acquittal on the ground of “parity” merely because another similarly placed co‑accused has been acquitted; and
2. How courts should evaluate evidence when the investigation itself is tainted or politically motivated.

The petitioner (A6) – an influential municipal councillor – challenged his conviction under Sections 304 Part II, 450, 323, 324, 427 read with Section 120B IPC, urging that his role was limited to presence at the spot and that the investigation was biased. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP), upholding the High Court’s findings that the conspiracy and knowledge requirements stand proved despite the investigative irregularities.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s conviction of A6 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II), house‑trespass (Section 450) and allied offences, all read with the conspiracy provision (Section 120B).
• It reiterated that “parity of acquittal” is not an absolute rule; the evidentiary substratum against each accused must be assessed individually.
• Even where the investigation is demonstrably biased, courts must salvage credible evidence to ensure criminals do not escape “by default”.
• Circumstantial proof of conspiracy—motive, preparation meeting, exhortation to kill—was considered sufficient in absence of direct evidence, following the precedent in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini.
• The Court found the knowledge element for Section 304 Part II fulfilled, reasoning that A6’s exhortation and supervision of the armed assault showed awareness of the likely fatal consequences.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715
   – Held that defective or mala fide investigation does not necessarily vitiate trial; courts must independently appraise evidence. The present Bench leaned on this to disregard deliberate omissions by earlier Investigating Officers (PW17 & PW18).
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253
   – Clarified that conspiracy is usually proved through circumstantial evidence. Adopted here to infer conspiracy from (a) motive, (b) pre‑attack gathering outside A5’s house, and (c) A6’s exhortation.
3. Principle of Parity (various cases)
   – Though not explicitly named, the Court referred to jurisprudence that parity applies only where evidence and circumstances are “identical”. It distinguished A6 from A5, indicating that resemblance in charges does not automatically transpose to resemblance in proof.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Motive and Antecedent Conduct
Two altercations – one in the deceased’s house over coir‐mat sales and another in the ward council meeting – supplied a clear motive traceable to A6’s political influence and irritation.

b) Conspiracy and Common Design
The congregation of A1‑A6 outside A5’s house minutes before the assault, coupled with A6’s exhortation (“kill them”), was deemed a “physical manifestation of the conspiracy”. The Court stressed that even silent approval or supervision can amount to participation.

c) Knowledge Standard under Section 304 Part II
Unlike Section 302, Section 304 Part II requires proof of knowledge—not intention—that the act is likely to cause death. By watching the accused pick up wooden logs, facilitating entry, and actively instigating, A6 necessarily knew fatal injury was a probable outcome.

d) Rejection of the Parity Argument
A5’s presence was explainable (he lived next door) and uncorroborated by reliable witnesses. A6’s presence was established by independent witnesses (PW1, PW4, PW7) and linked to motive. Hence, different evidentiary matrices nullified the parity plea.

e) Salvaging Evidence Amid Investigational Bias
Acknowledging manipulation by IOs, the Bench invoked Yarappa Reddy to separate “tainted investigation” from “untainted proof”, emphasizing judicial duty to protect the integrity of criminal justice.

3.3 Potential Impact

• Investigational Lapses No Longer a Trump Card – Defence cannot bank solely on police misconduct; courts will examine whether remaining evidence independently establishes guilt.
• Limited Scope of Parity – Accused will have to show not just similarity in charges but also virtual identity of evidence to claim benefit of a co‑accused’s acquittal.
• Re‑invigoration of Conspiracy Doctrine – The ruling underscores that presence, exhortation, and shared motive are sufficient for conviction under Section 120B, broadening prosecutorial latitude in political violence cases.
• Guidance for Trial Courts – Trial judges must meticulously record reasons when they discard hostile‑or‑influenced investigative material, and concurrently safeguard credible parts of the record.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC): An agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. Direct evidence is rare; courts rely on conduct, meetings, and subsequent acts.
• Culpable Homicide vs. Murder: Murder (Section 302) needs intention; culpable homicide (Section 304 Part II) needs only knowledge that death is a likely result.
• Parity Principle: The idea that similarly placed co‑accused should receive similar outcomes. It is not a statutory right but a prudential guideline subject to evidentiary comparison.
• Hostile Witness: A prosecution witness who retracts or contradicts previous statements. Courts can use the “creditworthy portion” of their evidence.
• Section 164 CrPC Statement: A voluntary statement made before a magistrate, often used when the witness claims police statements were incorrectly recorded.

5. Conclusion

R. Baiju v. State of Kerala reaffirms that defective investigation, political overtones, or the acquittal of a co‑accused do not automatically dismantle a criminal case. The Supreme Court’s measured approach—scrutinising each layer of evidence, identifying credible portions, and applying conspiracy principles—sets a pragmatic precedent. It compels future litigants to focus less on procedural loopholes and more on substantive evidence, while reminding investigative agencies that their failings will be exposed yet not necessarily fatal to prosecution if courts can still unearth truth from the record.

The judgment will resonate particularly in politically sensitive prosecutions, supplying both trial courts and appellate forums with a robust analytical framework to separate investigative bias from evidentiary merit, and to judiciously apply the doctrine of parity. Ultimately, it advances the central theme that criminal justice must eschew both reflexive acquittals and blind convictions, anchoring decisions firmly in reasoned appraisal of facts and law.