Supreme Court: In the present case, the appellant-convict suspected infidelity of his wife and that his three children were not his own, brutally assaulted them, which resulted in their death. The 3-Judges Bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol*, and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., while affirming the findings of the Courts below regarding the appellant’s conviction for the barbaric and ruthless murders of his family members, opined that the High Court, despite having considerable information, did not consider it appropriately and sufficiently, in relation to the findings of report that detailed the appellant’s social and psychological backdrop.
The Court, after considering the total circumstances that drove the appellant to the point of committing the crime of a most reprehensible nature, opined that death penalty might not be appropriate and thus, party allowed the appeals to the extent that he was released from death row, and held that he should await his last breath in prison, without remission.
Background
In 2017, the appellant brutally assaulted his wife, his sister-in-law, and his children brutally, resulting in their death. Thereafter, he stepped out of the house and proclaimed his satisfaction of having put an end to the life of his wife and sister-in-law who, as per him, were engaged in ‘immoral activities’ and the children born to his wife, were a direct consequence of such immoral activities. There were eight prosecution witnesses, who heard the statement, rushed to the appellant’s house, and found his wife, his sister-in-law, and his children lying in a pool of blood. One of the appellant’s children who was still alive, was taken to the hospital, but she died there.
One of the relatives of the appellant’s wife lodged a complaint with the police that the appellant killed his wife, his sister-in-law and even his children, and thereafter, the appellant himself went to the police and admitted having killed them. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented for trial under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court held that the appellant had barbarically murdered his family members, had a ‘beast mind’ and thus, found it fit to impose capital punishment. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, but the same was confirmed by the High Court, against which the present appeal was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it could not be questioned that the appellant’s act came from a place of grave hatred for the deceased persons and noted that there was no sudden provocation which led him to take such a drastic step. The Court stated that his planning and forethought was exhibited by the fact that he sent away the only child he considered to be his own and had asked someone to collect her from the bus station, showing that he had love and care for her.
The Court opined that the appellant’s doubt upon the paternity of his three children was not substantiated by any evidence or by any witness, thus, only on a hunch and as a matter of belief, he ended the lives of his three children. The Court stated that regarding the appellant’s sister-in-law, it was said that she aided and abetted the alleged misdeed and wrongdoings of the appellant’s wife. The Court stated that though the appellant was illiterate, he was not irrational, as he had a plan in mind which he executed, thereby achieving his goal. The Court opined that there was nothing on record which would discredit the prosecution’s case or expose any gaps, errors, conjectures, or surmises in the chain of circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. No oral or documentary evidence was produced to show the appellant’s innocence and bring the possibility of involvement of third party.
The Court opined that the High Court called for the report that detailed the appellant’s social and psychological backdrop, but they were not fully considered. The Probation Report revealed that the appellant had no antecedents; there was mixed opinion on whether he was suitable for reformation or not. The “Conduct and Behavioural Report” submitted by the Government of Karnataka, Prisons and Correctional Services recorded that he had “good moral character” and “good conduct” with co-prisoners and prison officials. He also attempted to mend one of the gaps in his life i.e., literacy, by participating in the Basic Literacy Program organized by the Zilla Lok Shiksha Samiti and passing the same with good rank.
The Court noted that the mitigation report revealed difficulties throughout, like lack of paternal/maternal love and care which later became extreme protectiveness after the death of his brother, difficulties in learning in school leading to him dropping out, making impulsive decisions in business often leading to losses, breakdown of the marriage with his first wife. The Court also noted that the appellant made an attempt to take his own life on two occasions, one when he found out about the deaths of his entire family and two, when he himself was sentenced to death. The Court noted that the report had concluded that the appellant had the ability to adapt, engage in constructive activities, pursue an education despite past difficulty, continued worry about his daughter’s future, which showed a notable capacity for reform and personal growth.
The Court relied on Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 575, wherein the following factors were considered to modify the sentence of death to that of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, (a) lack of criminal antecedents; (b) satisfactory conduct in prison; and (c) possibility of reformation. The Court, in respect to the last factor, noted that there was mixed opinion on whether the appellant should or should not be able to reform his way, and thus opined that when there were two possible interpretations of a given set of facts or circumstances, the one that favoured the accused was to be adopted by the Court.
The Court while affirming the findings of the Courts below regarding the appellant’s conviction for the barbaric and ruthless murders of his family members, opined that the High Court, despite having considerable information, did not consider it appropriately and sufficiently, in relation to the findings of reports.
The Court, after considering the total circumstances that drove the appellant to the point of committing the crime of a most reprehensible nature, opined that the death penalty might not be appropriate. The Court opined that the appellant should spend his days in jail attempting to repent for the crimes committed by him and thus, party allowed the appeals to the extent that he was released from death row, and he should await his last breath in prison, without remission.
[Byluru Thippaiah v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1455, decided on 16-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.; Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Adv.; Shreya Rastogi, Adv.; Vishal Sinha, Adv.; Trisha Chandran, Adv.; Aakarsh Kamra, AOR
For the Respondent: Avishkar Singhvi, Additional Advocate General; V.N. Raghupathy, AOR
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
