Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
He Should Spend His Days In Jail Attempting To Repent For The Crimes: Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Killed Wife & Children
|The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court upholding the punishment of death penalty.
The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence of a man who killed his wife and children and has also ordered that he would await his last breath in prison, without remission. The Apex Court took note of the mitigating report and the judgments where the sentence of death has been modified to that of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.
The Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court upholding the punishment of death penalty.
The 3-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “However, on the aspect of sentencing, we hold that despite having considerable information before it, the High Court did not consider it appropriately and sufficiently, in view of the findings recorded in the said reports. Considering the sum-total of circumstances that drove the Appellant-convict to this point of committing this crime of a most reprehensible nature, the death penalty may not be appropriate. We are of the view that he should spend his days in jail attempting to repent for the crimes committed by him.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan represented the Appellant while AOR V. N. Raghupathy represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The seed of violence, in this case, was the suspected infidelity of the appellant’s wife. He also suspected that his three children were perhaps not his own. The incident dates back to the year 2017, when the Appellant-convict assaulted his wife, her sister and his children brutally, resulting in their deaths. Having done so, he stepped out of the house and apparently, proclaimed his satisfaction of having put an end to the life of his wife and sister-in-law, who, according to him, was engaged in ‘immoral activities’.
This statement was witnessed by eight prosecution witnesses. Upon hearing such a statement, they rushed to the house of the Appellant-convict and found the abovenamed deceased persons lying there in a pool of blood. The appellant admitted to having killed the aforementioned persons, and he was formally arrested. A chargesheet was presented for trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Trial Court imposed capital punishment upon him. The appellant’s appeal before the High Court was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses, the Bench found that numerous witnesses had testified to the Appellant-convict’s quarrelsome nature and repeated clashes with them. Quite a few witnesses had deposed that they saw the Appellant-convict with the murder weapon, as he was also drenched in blood. “It cannot be questioned that the act of the Appellant-convict came from a place of grave hatred for the deceased persons. It has, however been recorded that there was no sudden provocation which led to him having taken such a drastic step. His planning and forethought is sufficiently exhibited by the fact that he sent away the only child he considered to be his own that is, Rajeshwari”, the Bench said.
As per the Bench, doubting upon the paternity of the children was not substantiated by any evidence, nor had any of the witnesses lent credence to this hypothesis. Therefore, only on a hunch and as a matter of belief, he chose to end the lives of three young children. It was further noticed that there was nothing on record to discredit the case of the prosecution or expose any gaps, errors, conjectures or surmises in the chain of circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt. Not a shred of evidence, either oral or documentary, had been produced to posit Appellant-convict’s innocence and raising the possibility of involvement of a third party.
Coming to the issue of sentence, the Bench said, “On the aspect of sentencing, the test to be applied is as to whether the conduct of the Appellant-convict meets the standard of ‘rarest of rare cases’. This has been the consistent position in confirmation of sentences of death imposed by the trial courts, ever since Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. Swami Shradhanand v. State of Karnataka, introduced a new position wherein the Courts were able to impose sentences that fall short of death but at the same time, keeping in mind the heinousness of the crime by the accused persons, ensure that the society is not put in danger with the possibility of such an accused walking free.”
The Bench referred to the mitigation report wherein it was mentioned that the Appellant-convict can adapt, engage in constructive activities, pursue an education despite past difficulty and continues to worry about his daughter (Rajeshwari’s) future. It was further mentioned in the Report that the Appellant-convict’s continued incarceration had a negative impact on Rajeshwari, who was struggling to cope with life. Interactions with her, threw light on a gentle, loving side of the Appellant convict. Reference was also made by the Bench to the judgments wherein the sentence of death has been modified to that of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.
“Considering the sum-total of circumstances that drove the Appellant-convict to this point of committing this crime of a most reprehensible nature, the death penalty may not be appropriate. We are of the view that he should spend his days in jail attempting to repent for the crimes committed by him”, it said.
Releasing him from death row, the Bench partly allowed the appeal and ordered that he shall await his last breath in prison, without remission.
Cause Title: Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaia v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 862)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Advocates Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Shreya Rastogi, Vishal Sinha, Trisha Chandran, AOR Aakarsh Kamra
Respondent: AOR V. N. Raghupathy