“Hangman’s Noose Be Taken Off The Convict’s Neck”: Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Killing His Kids, Mother-In-Law & Sister-In-Law

The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence of a man into imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, who was accused of killing his two children, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law.

The Court was dealing with Criminal Appeals filed by the convict against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which it confirmed his conviction and death sentence.

The three-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed, “We direct that the hangman’s noose be taken off the appellant-convict’s neck, and instead that he remains in prison till the end of his days given by God Almighty.”

The Bench took note of the following factors –

a) the Appellant-convict had no criminal antecedents;

b) good relations with the deceased persons;

c) all mitigating circumstances were not considered by the Trial Court.

AOR K. Paari Vendhan represented the Appellant while AAG Prateek K. Chadha represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Appellant-convict was working as a Manager at Punjab National Bank and was married to a woman who was herself an employee of the State Bank of Mysore. They had two children aged 10 years and 3½ years respectively. It was alleged that the Appellant was dissatisfied with the behaviour and life choices of his sister-in-law whom he had gotten a job at the Provident Fund office, who fell in love with her co-worker and wanted to pursue matrimonial life with him. He first tried to get his wife to dissuade her from going down her chosen path but was persuaded to refrain from interfering therein. Subsequently, while visiting his in-laws place, this issue again came up and he once again found his wife not to be supporting his stand. Allegedly, to teach her and his sister-in-law a lesson, he decided to end the lives of the latter, his own children, mother-in-law, and then to get his wife to commit suicide.

Therefore, the Appellant allegedly killed them (mother-in-law and sister-in-law) and dumped their bodies in the sump tank of his house. It was further alleged that thereafter, he on the pretext of showing his children around the city, took them in the cab to the gardens and drowned them in the tank. Having done so, he allegedly sent a message to his wife, informing her that the said persons were no longer in the land of the living, and she too should follow suit by ending her life in a well. Concerned by this, she informed her relatives, who advised approaching the authorities. Eventually, the dead bodies were found in the water tank and the Appellant was apprehended. The Trial Court convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and awarded death sentence to him. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and hence, he challenged this before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, remarked, “A child’s parents are their reason for existence and form an indispensable part of their lives, even more so, in the early years of life. Parents are expected to be loving, nurturing and sometimes disciplining guides in life. Abraham Lincoln is said to have said that “love is the chain whereby to bind a child to its parents1”. In the classical traditions of India, however, parents are placed on a higher pedestal, at an exalted position, as their word equals the word of God. While it is true that in modern times, we refrain from making such comparisons, nonetheless, it cannot be said that the irreplaceability, essentiality, importance, and desirousness of the love, affection, and stewardship of parents, has been watered down in any way. One is forced to wonder, in the facts of this case, how these cherished ideals could have been entirely absent.”

The Court observed that it should not even for a moment be taken to understand that the barbarity of the crime, the helplessness of the two children who met the most unfortunate of ends, and that too at the hands of the very person who bore half the responsibility of bringing them into the world, has escaped the Court, or it, in any way have condoned such a hideous act, done by the Appellant-convict.

“Ms. Savitha and Ms. Saraswathi, too, were killed for no fault of theirs either (for which the accused already stands tried and convicted separately). Whom a person falls in love with, is not within the human sphere of control - the former fell in love with her colleague, Mr. P. Mohan (PW-19) who was her co-worker, and who incidentally was of a different caste. When told to break off her relationship with him for that reason, she couldn’t. Her sister, Smt. Sundari and her mother, the latter, both supported their near and dear ones in pursuing their desires. We see nothing wrong with that”, it further noted.

The Court said that the Appellant-convict, getting his sister-in-law a job is out of love and affection for the family members of his wife, which, of course, is by extension, his family, and so, for him to expect that his word be taken as the gospel truth which everyone is bound to follow, is unquestionably a case of unjustified high-handedness.

“It is sad that such a restrictive world-view on part of the appellant-convict became the reason for these senseless acts of violence and depravity. Had he heeded the advice of PW-2, when she told him not to interfere in Ms. Savitha’s personal matters, he could have gone on to live a perfectly happy life. After all, it is not without reason that the well-known proverb goes - “live and let live” which is said to mean that people should accept the way other people live and behave, particularly, if their way of doing things is different than one’s own”, it added.

The Court, therefore, concluded that when the sentence of death is imposed, it should only be imposed if the same is possible, even after an objective consideration of all the factors in favour of the person accused of having committed the offence, was not done properly.

Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the Appeals, upheld the Appellant’s conviction, and commuted the death sentence.

Cause Title- Ramesh A. Naika v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 303)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR K. Paari Vendhan, Advocates Yug Mohit Choudhary, Payoshi Roy, Siddhartha, Ragini Ahuja, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, G. Sriram, and Bharathimohan M.

Respondents: AAG Prateek K. Chadha, AOR V. N. Raghupathy, Advocates Sreekar Aechuri, Mythili S, Surbhi Soni, and Aniket Chauhaan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment