1. Murder of five family members based on suspected infidelity and paternity — Conviction under Section 302, IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1080
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2490-2491 OF 2023
Decided On : 16-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Aakarsh Kamra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Aakarsh Kamra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
The court determined that while the appellant committed brutal murders, the death penalty was not warranted due to mitigating circumstances and potential for reform, leading to a commutation to life imprisonment.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 366 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - The appellant was convicted for brutally murdering his wife, sister-in-law, and three children, driven by suspicion of infidelity. The trial court’s decision to impose the death sentence was upheld; however, the final order commuted the death penalty to imprisonment for life based on mitigating circumstances and potential for reform. (Paras 4, 6, 11, 12, 16)
(B) Conviction and Sentencing - The court reaffirmed the precedent that the death penalty should only be awarded in rarest of rare cases, also considering the socio-economic background and mental health of the appellant. The trial record showed brutal murders executed in a premeditated manner. (Paras 10, 11, 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, enraged over perceived infidelity, killed his wife, sister-in-law, and three children on February 25, 2017. Witnesses testified to his violent behavior and premeditation. The investigation established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
Despite finding the appellant guilt of the heinous murders, the court determined that the death penalty was not warranted, advocating for life imprisonment instead. (Para 17)
Issues: Whether the death penalty is appropriate in this case, given the prevailing mitigating circumstances surrounding the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that despite appointing the death penalty by the trial, the humanitarian aspects and the possibility of reformation must be considered judiciously before final sentencing.
Result: The death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the findings of the High Court regarding the conviction and the propriety of the death sentence. (Para 7 )
3. Evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt; however, probation and psychological reports indicate a capacity for reform and lack of criminal antecedents. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Death penalty may be modified to life imprisonment if reports show lack of antecedents, satisfactory prison conduct, and possibility of reformation. (Para 11 , 16 )
5. Conviction affirmed; death sentence commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission. (Para 17 )
6. When will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of guilt by lower courts?
The Court adopts a cautionary approach and will not reassess evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice, deprivation of rights, misreading of vital evidence, or an error of law. (Para 10 )
7. What information must be elicited before awarding capital punishment under the Manoj v. State of M.P. guidelines?
The State must produce psychiatric and psychological evaluations, and reports on the accused's age, family background, education, socio-economic status, criminal antecedents, and jail conduct to evaluate mitigating factors. (Para 11 )
8. Under what circumstances can a death sentence be modified to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life?
Modification is considered based on factors such as a lack of criminal antecedents, satisfactory conduct in prison, and the possibility of reformation. (Para 16 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. This is the third in an unfortunate line of cases that have travelled up to this Court in a recent past and have become ripe for adjudication where we find all sense of responsibility and propriety to have been given a go by, by the Appellant-convict. In this case, the seed of violence was the suspected infidelity of his wife Pakkeeramma1[Hereinafter referred to as D1]. He suspected that his three-children namely Pavithra2[Hereinafter referred to as D3], Nagraj @Rajappa3[Hereinafter referred to as D4] and Basamma4[Hereinafter referred to as D5] born to D-1 were perhaps not his own.
2. Concurrently, the Appellant-convict has been held guilty of charges framed against him in FIR Cr. No. 23 of 2017 dated 26th February 2017 registered at PS Kampli, Ballari District, Karnataka – by the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge5[Hereafter ‘Trial Court’], Ballari vide judgment dated 3rd December 2019 in Sessions Case No. 5031 of 2017 and by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 30th May 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 100170 of 2020 and Criminal Referred Case No. 100002 of 2020.
3. The facts of the appeals as have been culled out by the Courts below are that on 25th February 2017 the Appellant- convict assaulted D1, her sister Gangamma6[Hereinafter referred to as D2] and his children D3- D5 brutally, resulting in the death of D1 to D4 on the spot and D5 on the way to the hospital. 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’ and also the children born to his wife which, as per him, were a direct consequence of such immoral activities. This statement was witnessed by as many as eight prosecution witnesses, namely, Shankaramma (CW-4); Bandi Basavaraja alias S. Basavaraj (CW-11); Thippeswamy (CW-30); V. Sathyappa (CW-32); K. Abdul Wahid (CW-35); Mehaboob (CW-36); Ragavendra (CW-37); Syed Mehaboob (CW-38); Nagappa (CW-39) and Athaulla (CW-40). Upon hearing such a statement, they rushed to the house of the Appellant-convict and found the abovenamed deceased persons lying there in pool of blood. D-5, at this time, was still alive and was accordingly taken to the Government Hospital, by CWs 35 and 36, where she died. CW-2 Marenna lodged a complaint with the police that his nieces, D-1 and D-2 as also D-1’s children had been killed by the Appellant-convict. The latter also went to the Kampili PS and admitted to having killed D-1 to D-5.7[Ex. 9(a) at Pg 170 of CC]] A First Information Report8[FIR No. 23/2017] was registered and forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Sr. Dn.) on the same day at 11:45 pm. The Appellant-convict was formally arrested at 5 a.m., the next morning.
4. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented for trial under Section 302 , INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18609[Abbreviated as ‘IPC’]]. To establish its case, the prosecution examined 36 witnesses (although 66 were cited in the charge-sheet), marked 51 documents and 22 material objects, as exhibits. The Trial Court, having given its consideration to the evidence produced, concluded that the Appellant-convict had barbarically murdered his family members, D-1 to D-5 and had a ‘beast mind’. The order of sentencing dated 4th December 2019 reveals the consideration of two judgments of this Court, Khushwinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2019) 4 SCC 415 and Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chattisgarh , (2019) 10 SCC 423. In Khushwinder (supra) the appellant was convicted by all courts for having killed with premeditation, six people including two children. This he did on the pretext of ridding a close family member of an excessive drinking problem by getting the said family member in touch with an alleged godman, as also sending the father of the deceased children to Canada, for a hefty sum of money. The second case, Ishwari Lal Yadav (supra) was concerned with the s
