1. Murder of minor children and family members — Conviction under Section 302, IPC — Appeal against conviction and death sentence. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 435
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Ramesh A. Naika - Appellant
Versus
The Registrar General, High Court Of Karnataka Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 877-878 of 2020
Decided On : 13-02-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Yug Mohit Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Payoshi Roy, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Siddhartha, Adv. Ms. Ragini Ahuja, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. G. Sriram, Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Mythili S, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Yug Mohit Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Payoshi Roy, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Siddhartha, Adv. Ms. Ragini Ahuja, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. G. Sriram, Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Mythili S, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv.
The court ruled that death penalty requires unimpeachable circumstantial evidence and consideration of mitigating factors, leading to a commutation to life imprisonment without remission.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 366(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Death penalty for the murder of minor children - Conviction upheld by High Court, but death sentence modified to life imprisonment without remission due to lack of prior criminal antecedents and consideration of mitigating circumstances. (Paras 2, 5, 16, 18)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence must be of unimpeachable character to justify a death sentence, and the absence of any reasonable alternative hypothesis must be established. (Paras 6, 12)
(C) Motive - The court found that the motive for the murders stemmed from the appellant's dissatisfaction with family dynamics, particularly regarding his sister-in-law's relationship choices. (Paras 4.1, 4.4)
(D) Sentencing - The court noted that the imposition of the death penalty requires careful consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors, and in this case, the mitigating factors warranted a commutation of the sentence. (Paras 7, 16)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction and death sentence — Plea for commutation based on lack of criminal antecedents and possibility of reformation. (Para 2 , 9 )
3. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence upheld — Trial Court failed to objectively consider all mitigating factors, including lack of pre-trial criminal antecedents. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 16 )
4. Death penalty in circumstantial evidence cases requires unimpeachable evidence; commutation is warranted if mitigating factors are not objectively considered. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 )
5. Conviction maintained — Death sentence commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission. (Para 18 )
6. Can the death penalty be imposed in cases based on circumstantial evidence?
Yes, provided the circumstantial evidence is of an unimpeachable character, establishes an exceptional case, or sufficiently convinces the judicial mind that the option of a sentence lesser than death is foreclosed. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. How are criminal antecedents evaluated as a mitigating factor in sentencing?
Antecedents refer to preceding events. Conduct occurring during or post-trial, such as attempting to intimidate witnesses, does not justify denying the benefit of having no pre-trial criminal antecedents as a mitigating circumstance. (Para 10 )
8. Is a bifurcated hearing on sentence mandatory under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.?
There is a conflict between judgments of co-equal strength; some suggest a bifurcated hearing is necessary, while others hold a same-day hearing is permissible if the quality and reliability of assistance on sentencing are ensured. (Para 7 )
9. What factors justify commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment without remission?
Commutation may be granted based on the absence of previous criminal antecedents, satisfactory behavior, and the failure of the trial court to objectively consider all available mitigating circumstances. (Para 16 )
ORDER :
(Sanjay Karol, J.)
1. 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 parents, 1[https://home.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/alincolnbio.htm]”. 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 APPEALS
2. These appeals challenge judgment dated 22nd September 2017, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Referred Case No.2 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No.196 of 2014 confirming the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 366(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[Hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’]. Also, by the accused seeking setting aside the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[Hereafter ‘I.P.C.’] and sentence of death, respectively imposed by judgment and order dated 26th November 2013 and 3rd December 2013 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshin Kannada, Mangaluru sitting at Puttur,4[Hereafter ‘Trial Court’] in Sessions Case No.28 of 2011.
FACTS
3. The facts, as can be understood from the record are that : The appellant-convict was a respectable member of society working as a Manager at the Solapur Branch of the Punjab National Bank. He was married to Smt. Sundari (PW-2) who was herself an employee of the State Bank of Mysore, Mangalore Branch. They had two children – 10-year-old Bhuvanraj and 3½- year-old Krithika,5[Hereafter ‘deceased children’]. It is alleged that the appellant-convict was dissatisfied with the behaviour and life choices of his sister-in- law, Ms. Savitha whom he had gotten a job at the Provident Fund office, who fell in love with her co-worker Mr. P. Mohan (PW- 19) and wanted to pursue matrimonial life with him. Further, the appellant-accused first tried to get his wife to dissuade Ms. Savitha from going down her chosen path but was persuaded to refrain from interfering therein. Subsequently, while visiting Tumkur (residence of Ms. Savitha, and Mrs. Saraswathi, mother-in-law, and ancestral village of the appellant-accused) and Mangalore (where Smt. Sundari resided with the deceased children), from Solapur where he was posted, when this issue again came up, he once again found Smt. Sundari not to be supporting his stand. As such, to teach her and his sister-in-law a lesson, he decided to end the lives of the latter, his own children, Smt. Saraswathi, and then to get his wife to commit suicide.
In furtherance of this design, he killed, it is alleged by the prosecution, Ms. Savitha and Ms. Saraswathi at Tumkur Village, by dumping their bodies in the sump tank of his house there on 16th June 2010 and then came to Mangalore the next day. Here, having gotten in touch with PW-3, his nephew, he secured the locker keys from his wife, met PW-1, her brother, and gave him Rs.17,00,000/-. He then returned home and then, on the pretext of showing them around the city, took his children in the cab of PW-9, Firoze, to the gardens situated on the property of PW-7, Mr. Sathyanarayana Prasad, where he was seen arriving by Mr. Mahalinga Naika PW-4 and there drowned them in the tank. Having done so, he 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 rela
