Supreme Court of India
BYLURU THIPPAIAH @ BYALURU THIPPAIAH @ NAYAKARA THIPPAIAHversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 862
- Decided
- 16 July 2025
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission.
Summary
The appellant, Byluru Thippaiah, brutally murdered his wife, sister‑in‑law and three children on 25 February 2017, alleging that his wife and the children were not his and accusing them of promiscuity. He was tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court, a sentence confirmed by the Karnataka High Court. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging both the conviction and the death sentence. The Court examined the extensive circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies and the appellant's confession, finding the conviction to be sound and the evidence beyond reasonable doubt. While upholding the conviction, the Court held that the death penalty was not warranted in view of the appellant’s lack of prior criminal antecedents, mixed opinions on his reformation, and mitigating reports, and therefore commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission. The appeals were partly allowed, setting aside the death sentence.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of the death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murders of his wife, sister‑in‑law and three children
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be upheld
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 357, s. 357A, s. 366
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards commutation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant for committing brutal murder of his wife, sister-in- law and his three children. Headnotes† Sentence/Sentencing – Death sentence – Commutation murder by the appellant of his wife, sister-in- law and his three children – Motive was that the appellant accused his wife and sister-in-law of being promiscuous and that he had not fathered the three children – Trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.302
Subjects
Commutation of the death sentenceBrutal murderDeath sentenceMotiveWife and sister-in-law being promiscuousBarbaric and ruthless murders of family membersChain of circumstantial evidenceInvolvement of third partyRemissionMurder weaponGrave hatredSudden provocationPaternity of childrenProbation ReportMitigation reportReformation
Judgment
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 550 : 2025 INSC 862
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah
@ Nayakara Thippaiah
v.
State of Karnataka
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2490-2491 of 2023)
16 July 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards commutation of the death sentence awarded
to the appellant for committing brutal murder of his wife, sister-in-
law and his three children.
Headnotes†
Sentence/Sentencing – Death sentence – Commutation
of – Brutal murder by the appellant of his wife, sister-in-
law and his three children – Motive was that the appellant
accused his wife and sister-in-law of being promiscuous
and that he had not fathered the three children – Trial court
convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.302 and
awarded death sentence – Upheld by the High Court –
Correctness:
Held: Findings of the courts below regarding the appellant’s
conviction for the barbaric and ruthless murders of his family
members, affirmed – Nothing on record to discredit the prosecution
case or expose any gaps, errors, conjectures or surmises in the
chain of circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution,
beyond reasonable doubt – Act of the appellant came from a place
of grave hatred for the deceased persons, however there was no
sudden provocation which led to him having taken such a drastic
step – His planning and forethought is sufficiently exhibited – Not
a shred of evidence either oral or documentary produced to posit
appellant’s innocence and bringing the possibility of involvement of
third party – No reason to take a different view on the appellant’s
guilt, than the one that has been taken by the courts below,
keeping with the principle of adopting a cautionary approach in
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 551
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah v.
State of Karnataka
interfering with concurrent findings of guilt – However, as regards
sentencing, 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 – Probation Report
reveals that the appellant has no antecedents, there is mixed
opinion on whether he is suitable for reformation or not – Mitigation
report reveals difficulties throughout – Considering the sum total
of circumstances that drove the appellant to point of committing
this crime of a most reprehensible nature, the death penalty not
appropriate – He should spend his days in jail attempting to repent
for the crimes committed by him – He is released from death row,
instead, to await his last breath in prison, without remission – Penal
Code, 1860. [Paras 9-17]
Case Law Cited
Khushwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2019] 3 SCR 446 : (2019)
4 SCC 415; Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chattisgarh [2019]
13 SCR 893 : (2019) 10 SCC 423; Atley v. State of U.P., AIR
1955 SC 807; Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka [1997]
Supp. 3 SCR 444 : (1997) 7 SCC 110; Ramji Singh v. State of
Bihar (2001) 9 SCC 528; Saravanabhavan & Govindaswamy v.
State of Madras, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 176; Mekala Sivaiah v.
State of Andhra Pradesh [2022] 6 SCR 989 : (2022) 8 SCC 253;
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1979] 3 SCR 1193 : (1980)
2 SCC 684; Swami Shradhanand v. State of Karnataka [2008]
11 SCR 93 : (2008) 13 SCC 767; Manoj v. State of M.P. [2022]
9 SCR 452 : (2023) 2 SCC 353; Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar
General, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 575 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Commutation of the death sentence; Brutal murder; Death sentence;
Motive; Wife and sister-in-law being promiscuous; Not fathered the
children; Barbaric and ruthless murders of family members; Chain
of circumstantial evidence; Involvement of third party; Remission;
Murder weapon; Grave hatred; Sudden provocation; Paternity of
children; Probation Report; Mitigation report; Reformation.
552 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
2490-2491 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2023 of the High Court
of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in CRLA No. 100170 and
CRLRC No. 100002 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aathma Sudhir Kumar,
Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Vishal Sinha, Ms. Trisha Chandran, Aakarsh
Kamra.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G., V. N. Raghupathy, Vivek Kumar Singh,
Naved Ahmed, Ms. Sakshi Raman, Ms. Divya Prabha Singh.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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. He
suspected that his three-children namely Pavithra2, Nagraj @Rajappa3
and Basamma4 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
1 Hereinafter referred to as D1
2 Hereinafter referred to as D3
3 Hereinafter referred to as D4
4 Hereinafter referred to as D5
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 553
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah v.
State of Karnataka
IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge5, 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 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 A First Information Report8 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. To establish its
5 Hereafter ‘Trial Court’
6 Hereinafter referred to as D2
7 Ex. 9(a) at Pg 170 of CC
8 FIR No. 23/2017
9 Abbreviated as ‘IPC’
554 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 Punjab10 and Ishwari Lal Yadav
v. State of Chattisgarh11. 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 sentence of death imposed upon the appellants
therein for the murder of a two-year-old boy in sacrificium. Since the
child was brought to the house of Ishwari and his wife Kiran Bai by
the other co-accused, to further their attempts to gain enlightenment
by pleasing God, and, when questioned by the villagers regarding
the reason as to why there were freshly dug mounds of earth and
blood in their house, they confessed. They were convicted under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC across fora. Having considered
the above two cases, the Trial Court found it fit to impose capital
punishment. The conclusions are extracted hereunder:
“Materials on record indicates that, the accused has
chopped off his wife, sister-in-law and 03 helpless children
in a barbaric way, that too in a diabolical and dastardly
manner one after the other. There is a serial killing within a
span of few minutes. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed
out that accused has hatched a full proof plan before
chopping off 05 person. He has made arrangements that
none of them can escape from death. The photographs
of scene of crime itself is the mirror of cruelty. The
photographs are resembling a rustic butcher shop, where
10 (2019) 4 SCC 415
11 (2019) 10 SCC 423
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 555
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah v.
State of Karnataka
the animals were killed inhumanly. The accused has not
allowed the other person to see him chopping the rest.
The organ on which the cruel assault is made is clear
indication that accused has made up his mind not to
spare any of them. The Post Mortem report indicates that,
the children to whom the accused has chopped off were
hardly 06, 07 and 08 years helpless kids. The accused
mercilessly chopped off his own small children without a
second thought. That itself clearly indicates that accused
is not worth to live in the civilized society. It is also to be
noted that, even accused has threatened the witnesses
to kill them also if they give evidence against him after he
released from jail. This fact also clearly indicates that, even
now accused has no guilt feeling for committing murder
of his own 05 family members. Hence, as rightly pointed
out by the learned P.P. If the accused gets an opportunity
to come out of jail, he may finish off another dozen or so.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
keeping in view of the nature of crime committed by the
accused, I am of the opinion that, this case squarely fall
within the rarest of the rare category. However, as the
accused is guilt for the offence punishable under Section
302 of I.P.C., and as the prosecution has established that
accused has killed 05 innocent person in a pre-planned
murder. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the opinion that there is no alternative punishment suitable,
except the death sentence. The crime is committed with
extremist brutality and the collective conscious of the
society would be shocked. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that the capital punishment/death is the only solution to
this kind of crime. Hence, I hold that, this is a fit case to
impose capital punishment of death penalty…”
5. Given that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court was that of death,
the matter made its way to the High Court by way of confirmation
proceedings under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
197312. The Appellant-convict also challenged the conviction and
sentence.
12 For Short, ‘CrPC’.
556 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6. By the common impugned judgment, reference was answered in as
much as the sentence and conviction awarded by the Trial Court
were confirmed. The criminal appeal at the instance of the Appellant-
convict was, accordingly, dismissed. In coming to the conclusions as
it did, the High Court is required to have, as the first court of appeal,
re-examined the evidence before it, and come to an independent
conclusion regarding the correctness or otherwise, of the Trial Court
findings. [See: Atley v. State of U.P13; Ajit Savant Majagvai v.
State of Karnataka14 and Ramji Singh v. State of Bihar15] The
High Court has in this case, followed this well-established principle.
The findings can be summarized thus:
6.1 Motive on the part of the Appellant-convict can be established
by way of multiple witnesses, PW-2 (Halladamane Marenna),
PW-4 (Gangadhar), PW-5 (Thippaiah), PW-8 (Shankramma),
PW-9 (Raghavendra), PW-11 (Adbul Wahed), PW-14
(Somakka), PW-16 (Raghavendra), PW-17 (Syed Mehaboob),
PW-20 (Ramu), PW-21 (Parashuram), PW-32 (Anjinamma),
who have consistently deposed as to the frequent squabbles
between the Appellant-convict and D-1. Regarding his suspicion
of having not fathered the three children, PW-2, PW-9,
PW-14, PW-15 (Nagaraja) have stated that he made categorical
statements to that extent.
6.2 PWs 7, 11, 16 & 17 have deposed that the Appellant-convict
told them that he had ‘chopped off’ the deceased persons and
that he was happy about that.
6.3 The Appellant-convict’s statement to PW-15 that his daughter
Rajeshwari would be coming to the village of Yarakullu and that
he should pick her up, shows pre-planning. He has also stated
that he has only one child of his own.
6.4 The manner in which the five deceased persons met their death
shows barbarity, maliciousness on his part.
6.5 On the aspect of sentencing, the High Court asked the probation
officer concerned to collect certain information which would be
13 AIR 1955 SC 807
14 (1997) 7 SCC 110
15 (2001) 9 SCC 528
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 557
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah v.
State of Karnataka
relevant to the adjudication of the propriety of the highest form
of punishment.
6.6 The conclusions as can be drawn from the reading of paragraph
49 of the impugned judgment are that:
6.6.1 Regarding the early life and background of the Appellant-
convict, it was observed that he had lost his parents at an
early age and was brought up by his elder sister. Prior to
his marriage to D-1, he was married to someone else and
had begotten a son as well. There had been accusations
of him being responsible for his former father-in-law’s
death, but no action in law was taken.
6.6.2 He is illiterate. Troubled relations with his former wife,
including attempts to take her and her mother’s life,
resulted in separation. When it comes to D-1, here too,
he is without any assets or savings and resided with D-1
in her maternal home.
6.6.3 The Amin, 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court,
Hospete, indicated in his report that the people around
him do not believe he can be reformed. The probation
officer who spoke to the people in his native village,
however, said that he could be reformed.
6.6.4 Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences
in their report submitted that he had an IQ of 93, a
psychiatric score of 29, which is below the cut of score.
He does not have any personality disorders but is mildly
depressed.
6.6.5 The Court recorded that in their interaction with the
Appellant-convict, he only denied the happenings and
stated not to know anything about it. He appeared to be
divorced from reality, but since the psychiatric analysis
report ruled out the said possibility, he appears to have
no regard for law.
6.6.6 The gruesome manner of the commission of the murder
was taken as an aggravating circumstance. For the
opposite, it was held that none of the substance can be
found. He has only one daughter; no extreme mental or
physical disturbance or provocation.
558 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6.7 The final order is as below:-
“ORDER
i. Criminal Appeal No.100170/2020 stands dismissed.
ii. Criminal R.C.No.100002/2020 stands allowed.
iii. The death sentence awarded by the trial Court is
confirmed. The Appellant shall be hung by his neck
till death.
iv. The Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to
forward the above file to the concerned District
Legal Service Authority (DLSA) to determine and
make necessary arrangements for payment of
compensation in terms of Sections 357 and 357A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the daughter of
the deceased namely Rajeshwari.
v. Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this judgment
to the Appellant through Jail Authorities free of cost
and inform him of his right to appeal to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and transmit the trial Court records
to the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.
vi. Though the above matter is disposed, re-list on
10.07.2023 at 2.30 p.m. for reporting compliance
with the directions issued above.
vii. We place our appreciation for the services rendered
by Sri.S.L.Matti, Panel Advocate of Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority.”
7. The extant appeals are by the Appellant-convict challenging the
findings of the High Court. We have heard Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,
learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Avishkar Singhvi,
learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Karnataka.
8. As we have already noticed, the prosecution examined a total of
thirty-six witnesses. A brief overview of the relevant PWs is as under:
8.1 PW-1 is the Medical Officer, Kampili Government Hospital. He
conducted the post-mortem of the deceased persons. Having
seen the weapon allegedly used by the Appellant-convict, it
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 559
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah v.
State of Karnataka
was said that the weapon (Ex.7) could have been used to
cause the injuries.
8.2 PW-2 stated that the Appellant-convict would repeatedly accuse
D-1 and D-2 of being promiscuous. He further stated that the
Appellant-convict had called and told him that he had killed the
deceased persons. He went to D-1’s house to check on them
and found all of them dead. He also stated that Appellant-convict
threatened to kill him after he leaves the Court.
8.3 PW-4 stated that PW-2 informed him crying over the phone that
Appellant-convict had killed D-1 to D-5. He went to the spot of
the crime and saw the bodies of the deceased persons there.
8.4 PW-5 stated that PW-2 informed him crying over the phone
that Appellant-convict had killed D-1 to D-5. At the time that
he reached the spot, D-5 was still alive and was accordingly
taken to receive medical attention. PW-7 told him that D-1 had
an affair with another person, and that is the reason why the
Appellant-convict took such a step. When the latter came out of
the house, the chopper which was the alleged murder weapon
was in his hand, and he stated that he had killed them.
8.5 PW-7 who had been declared a hostile witness, deposed
that upon receipt of information regarding the commission of
murders, he went to the spot. He was the one who informed the
complainant. He had however, not seen the Appellant-convict
coming out of the house. In the cross-examination he stated
that he had gone to the spot having heard sounds of quarrelling.
8.6 PW-8 in her examination in chief, made a positive identification
of the weapon allegedly used by the Appellant-convict. She also
deposed that he came out of the house and declared that he
had killed D-1 to D-5. In her cross-examination, she denied the
suggestion that she had not seen the incident.
8.7 PW-11 in his testimony deposed regarding a particular quarrel
which happened a few months prior to the incident and that
PW-2 had told him that it was a fairly regular occurrence. Part
of his testimony reads as under:
“On the date of incident i.e. 25.02.2017 I saw the
accused holding M.O-1 chopper in his hand. He was
coming out of his house holding M.O-1. It was fully
560 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
blood stained. Accused was abusing his wife and
declaring that “-sic-”. When I rush to the house of
accused it was fully blooded there were five human
bodies found laying in the pool of blood. Out of which
four person were already dead, One girl found to be
alive I immediately shifted her to the Hospital there
she was declared dead. Thippeswamy, Basavaraja
and Satyappa also accompanied me.”
8.8 PW-14 stated that the Appellant-convict was quarrelsome and
often he had asked the latter to mend his ways to no avail. He
got information of the occurrence the next day morning. He
also deposed that the Appellant-convict often cast aspersions
on the fidelity of D-1 and the children, D-3 to D-5, that’s why
he killed them.
8.9 PW-15 is the person who had housed the Appellant-convict’s
daughter Rajeshwari, upon the latter’s request, when he had
planned to kill D-1 to D-5. He states that the only reason she
was spared was that he believed her to be his child.
8.10 PW-16 deposed as follows:-
“…At about 8.00 p.m. the accused came out of his
house holding a chopper, which was blood stained,
his clothes were also stained with blood. I have
enquired him about the blood stains, he reported
that he chopped off five person and abused them
as prostitutes. The accused moved to Police Station
alongwith chopper. Immediately we rush to the house
of accused. Where we noticed that five persons were
lying in the pool of blood, sustaining chopper injuries
out of which three women died and a boy also no more.
A girl aged five years was alive sustaining grievous
head injury. Immediately we shifted the injured girl to
the hospital, where she also passed away…”
Cross-examination by Sri C.M.S.P. advocate for
accused
...It is false to suggest that on the date of incident
also it was informed by others, witness voluntaries
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 561
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah v.
State of Karnataka
that myself saw the accused. M.O-1 is the same
chopper which was held by accused on that day. It is
false to suggest that I have not seen M.O-1. It is true
that I didn’t enquire the accused about the cause of
this incident. Accused moved away with courage...”
We have extracted the aforesaid, for as we notice the testimony
of this important witness remains unimpeachable, clearly
establishing the guilt of the Appellant-convict.
8.11 PW-22 is Rajeshwari, the daughter of Appellant-convict. She
was not present at the time of the incident and did not know
how the deceased persons died. She stated that D-1 and
the Appellant-convict would never fight and were cordial with
one-another.
Well, she is the only one who had supported the Appellant-
convict. In view of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, her
testimony cannot be said to have rendered the prosecution
case to be doubtful of the Appellant-convict’s involvement in
the crime.
8.12 PWs 23 and 24 both stated that they reached the spot upon
hearing a commotion. There they found out that the Appellant-
convict had put an end to five of his family members.
8.13 PW-29 deposed that he is the Appellant-convict’s immediate
neighbour and upon hearing a commotion, he stepped out of
his house to see a throng of people gathering there. He also
saw the Appellant-convict stepping away from his house with
the blood-stained weapon in his hand. It was then he found
out what had transpired.
8.14 PW-33 was the CPI at Kampili Circle. He stated that the
Appellant-convict having committed the crime, surrendered.
He recorded the voluntary confession statement given by the
Appellant-convict. He also recovered the murder weapon and
shirt worn by the Appellant-convict at the time of the crime. He
identified the various objects recovered by him in the course
of investigation and also stated the names of various persons
whose statements were recorded by him. Nothing could be
elicited in the cross-examination to discredit his testimony or
the investigation process.
562 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the testimonies,
referred supra and also all other evidence brought on record by
the prosecution. We find that numerous witnesses have testified to
Appellant-convict’s quarrelsome nature and repeated clashes with
D-1. Further, quite a few witnesses have deposed that they saw
the Appellant-convict with the murder weapon as also he himself
was drenched in blood. Still further, other witnesses such as PW-10
testified that he came out of the house and in front of all the people
that had gathered there due to gatala stated openly that due to the
promiscuous nature of D-1 and D-2 and the fact that D-3 to D-5 were
not his children, he murdered them. 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. He also phoned up PW-15 and asked him to collect her
from the bus station displaying that he had love and care for her in his
heart. To doubt upon the paternity of D-3 to D-5 is not substantiated
by any evidence nor have 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. Regarding D-2, his
sister-in-law, the only statement that can be found is that she aided
and abetted the alleged misdeed and wrongdoings of D-1. We ask
ourselves a question – is belief simpliciter sufficient enough to drive a
person to a point of no return where ending the life of the deceased
is the only rational outcome that can be perceived. We think, not. It
is true that Appellant-convict is illiterate, but he is most certainly not
irrational. He had a plan in mind which he executed, achieving his
desired goal. There is nothing on record which would 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 reasonable doubt. Not a shred of evidence either
oral or documentary has been produced to posit Appellant-convict’s
innocence and bringing the possibility of involvement of third party.
10. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to take a different view
on the Appellant-convict’s guilt, than the one that has been taken by
the Courts below. This is keeping with the well-established principle
of this Court adopting a cautionary approach in interfering with
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 563
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah v.
State of Karnataka
concurrent findings of guilt. Hidayatullah J. (as his Lordship then
was) writing for the majority in Saravanabhavan & Govindaswamy
v. State of Madras16, captured this principle in the following terms:
“It has been ruled in many cases before, that this Court
will not reassess the evidence at large, particularly when
it has been concurrently accepted by the High Court and
the court or courts below. In other words this Court does
not form a fresh opinion as to the innocence or the guilt
of the accused. It accepts the appraisal of the evidence in
the High Court and the court or courts below. Therefore,
before this Court interferes something more must be
shown, such as: that there has been in the trial a violation
of the principles of natural justice or a deprivation of the
rights of the accused or a misreading of vital evidence
or an improper reception or rejection of evidence which,
if discarded or received, would leave the conviction
unsupportable, or that the court or courts have committed
an error of law or of the forms of legal process or procedure
by which justice itself has failed.”
[See also: Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh17].
11. 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 Punjab18. Swami Shradhanand v. State of
Karnataka19, 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. In para 10 thereof, it was observed:
“The absolute irrevocability of the death penalty renders it completely
incompatible to the slightest hesitation on the part of the Court.”
16 1965 SCC OnLine SC 176
17 (2022) 8 SCC 253
18 (1980) 2 SCC 684
19 (2008) 13 SCC 767
564 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
With the judgment in Manoj v. State of M.P.20 came a watershed
moment in the criteria of sentencing. This judgment ensured that
if and when a person is finally sent to the gallows he is only so
sent after due consideration of the entire background of facts and
circumstances that have landed the accused person at the precipice
of death. Under the direction issued therein, the Court is required to
call for reports that detail the social and psychological backdrop of the
Appellant-convict. It was held by the three-Judge Bench as follows :
“249. To do this, the trial court must elicit information from
the accused and the State, both. The State, must—for an
offence carrying capital punishment—at the appropriate
stage, produce material which is preferably collected
beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing
psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.
This will help establish proximity (in terms of timeline), to
the accused person’s frame of mind (or mental illness,
if any) at the time of committing the crime and offer
guidance on mitigating factors (1), (5), (6) and (7) spelled
out in Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580]. Even for the
other factors of (3) and (4)—an onus placed squarely
on the State—conducting this form of psychiatric and
psychological evaluation close on the heels of commission
of the offence, will provide a baseline for the appellate
courts to use for comparison i.e. to evaluate the progress
of the accused towards reformation, achieved during the
incarceration period.
250. Next, the State, must in a time-bound manner,
collect additional information pertaining to the accused.
An illustrative, but not exhaustive list is as follows:
(a) Age
(b) Early family background (siblings, protection of parents,
any history of violence or neglect)
(c) Present family background (surviving family members,
whether married, has children, etc.)
20 (2023) 2 SCC 353
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 565
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah v.
State of Karnataka
(d) Type and level of education
(e) Socio-economic background (including conditions of
poverty or deprivation, if any)
(f) Criminal antecedents (details of offence and whether
convicted, sentence served, if any)
(g) Income and the kind of employment (whether none,
or temporary or permanent, etc.);
(h) Other factors such as history of unstable social
behaviour, or mental or psychological ailment(s), alienation
of the individual (with reasons, if any), etc.
This information should mandatorily be available to the trial
court, at the sentencing stage. The accused too, should
be given the same opportunity to produce evidence in
rebuttal, towards establishing all mitigating circumstances.
251. Lastly, information regarding the accused’s jail
conduct and behaviour, work done (if any), activities the
accused has involved themselves in, and other related
details should be called for in the form of a report from the
relevant jail authorities (i.e. Probation and Welfare Officer,
Superintendent of Jail, etc.). If the appeal is heard after a
long hiatus from the trial court’s conviction, or High Court’s
confirmation, as the case may be — a fresh report (rather
than the one used by the previous court) from the jail
authorities is recommended, for a more exact and complete
understanding of the contemporaneous progress made by
the accused, in the time elapsed. The jail authorities must
also include a fresh psychiatric and psychological report
which will further evidence the reformative progress, and
reveal post-conviction mental illness, if any.”
12. The High Court did, in accordance with Manoj (supra), call for
the reports. However, we are of the considered view, that the said
reports have not been considered to their full extent. The Probation
Report reveals that the Appellant-convict has no antecedents; there
is mixed opinion on whether he is suitable for reformation or not. The
“Conduct and Behavioural Report” submitted by the Government of
Karnataka, Prisons and Correctional Services records that he has
“good moral character” and “good conduct” with co-prisoners and
566 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
prison officials. He has also attempted to mend one of the gaps in
the fabric of 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.
13. The mitigation report reveals difficulties throughout- 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 for
the reason that neither quite comprehended issues with substance
dependence.
14. Once incarcerated, it appears that mental health struggles have been
a constant and unwelcome companion. He considered making 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.
15. The report further concludes that:
(a) the Appellant-convict has the ability to adapt, engage in
constructive activities, pursue an education despite past difficulty,
continued worry about his daughter (Rajeshwari’s) future, shows
a notable capacity for reform and personal growth;
(b) the Appellant-convict’s continued incarceration has had a
negative impact on Rajeshwari, who is really struggling to cope
with life. Interactions with her, threw light on a gentle, loving side
of the Appellant-convict. She has also reported experiencing
auditory hallucinations which is a direct impact of loneliness
she has been enduring.
16. Recently, this Court undertook a detailed examination of the past
cases wherein the sentence of death has been modified to that of
imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. [See: Ramesh A.
Naika v. Registrar General21] A perusal of the factors elucidated
therein show that (a) lack of criminal antecedents; (b) satisfactory
conduct in prison; (c) possibility of reformation; as a criteria, apply
to the instant case. Regarding the last one, it can be said that given
21 2025 SCC OnLine SC 575
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 567
Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah v.
State of Karnataka
there is mixed opinion on whether he shall or shall not be able to
reform his way, the Court will err on the side of caution just as
when there are two possible interpretations of a given set of facts or
circumstances, the one that favours the accused is to be adopted.
17. While we affirm the findings of the Courts below regarding the
Appellant-convict’s conviction for the barbaric and ruthless murders of
his family members, D-1 to D-5. 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. As such, these appeals are partly allowed to the
extent that he is released from death row. Instead, he shall await
his last breath in prison, without remission.
Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Commutation of the death sentence"Sign in to search