Supreme Court of India
RAMESH A. NAIKAversusTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ETC.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 303
- Decided
- 13 February 2025
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
In cases where circumstantial evidence is unimpeachable but mitigating factors exist, the death penalty may be commuted to life imprisonment without remission.
Summary
The appellant, a bank manager, was convicted of murdering his two minor children, his sister‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law in June 2010, motivated by his disapproval of his sister‑in‑law’s relationship. The trial court sentenced him to death, a judgment affirmed by the Karnataka High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence satisfied the ‘Panchsheel’ principles and whether the death penalty was appropriate in view of mitigating circumstances. While the Court upheld the conviction, it held that the evidence, though unimpeachable, did not preclude consideration of mitigation such as the appellant’s lack of prior criminal antecedents and his previously good relations with the victims. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission. The appeals were partly allowed, the conviction retained and the sentence modified.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the ‘Panchsheel’ principles governing circumstantial evidence were satisfied.
- Whether the death penalty was the appropriate punishment given the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
- Whether the trial court erred in not considering certain mitigating factors such as lack of antecedents and good conduct.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 230, s. 235(2), s. 311, s. 313, s. 366(1)
- Evidence Act, 1872s. 3, s. 62, s. 65B
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Appellant-R, a bank manager, was convicted of murdering his two minor children, along with his sister-in-law and mother-in- law, in June 2010. His motive stemmed from disapproval of his sister-in-law’s relationship, which his wife and On 16.06.2010, he allegedly killed his sister-in-law and mother-in- law at his house in Tumkur and disposed of their bodies in a sump tank. The next day, he took his children to a water tank in Mangalore and drowned them. He later sent messages to his wife, suggesting she end her life. His
Subjects
Death penaltyMurderCircumstantial evidencePanchsheel principlesMitigating circumstancesSentencingCommutationCriminal law
Judgment
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1721 : 2025 INSC 303
Ramesh A. Naika
v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 877-878 of 2020)
13 February 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol* and
Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant-R, a bank manager, was convicted of murdering his
two minor children, along with his sister-in-law and mother-in-
law, in June 2010. His motive stemmed from disapproval of his
sister-in-law’s relationship, which his wife and her family supported.
On 16.06.2010, he allegedly killed his sister-in-law and mother-in-
law at his house in Tumkur and disposed of their bodies in a sump
tank. The next day, he took his children to a water tank in Mangalore
and drowned them. He later sent messages to his wife, suggesting
she end her life. His wife reported the matter, leading to his arrest.
The Trial Court sentenced him to death. It was held by the Trial
Court that the circumstances did indeed point to the guilt of the
appellant and that the defence could not point to any alternative
hypothesis to establish his innocence. He was in the company of the
deceased children and none else, hence the application of the last
seen theory - he had to explain that since they were with him, and
a short time later they were found to be deceased, it was incumbent
upon him to furnish an explanation. Since none is forthcoming, all
circumstances considered, the chain is completed. The conviction
by the Trial Court and the sentence of death penalty imposed on
the accused was upheld by the Karnataka High Court.
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence
of death penalty imposed on the Appellant by the Trial Court
confirmed by the High Court can be interfered with.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of two minor children –
Conviction under Section 302 confirmed, whereas death penalty
commuted to life sentence – Case of circumstantial evidence:
* Author
1722 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: It is clearly a case of circumstantial evidence – The principles
to be applied in consideration of the evidence have been christened
the ‘Panchsheel Principles’ detailed in the Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 judgment – Both
the Courts below have found the circumstances to be established
against the appellant-convict – Held that there is no error in the
findings recorded by both the Courts qua the guilt of the Appellant
and the judgment on conviction. [Para 6]
Criminal Procedure Code – Sentencing – Mitigating
circumstances relied upon to commute death penalty
to life sentence till remainder of life without remission:
Held: To enable parties to adequately prepare, it is desirable that
there be some gap between the pronouncement of judgment,
and the hearing on sentencing – It has, however, been held that
the point of focus in a sentencing hearing is quality and reliability
of assistance and closeness of time, itself would not render the
sentence handed down, susceptible to doubt – The mitigating
circumstances considered including Appellant’s lack of prior criminal
record, his good relations with the deceased individuals before the
crime, and his initial act of securing a job for his sister-in-law, which
indicated positive intentions toward the family – The absence of
criminal intent as a mitigating circumstance was negated by the
Court.
The rule only is that the circumstantial evidence ought to be
unimpeachable, and the matter at hand be an exceptional case, or
the evidence be so convincing that the option of imposition of any
other penalty stands foreclosed in the judicial mind – Therefore,
non-consideration of this ground cannot be said to be damaging
to the sanctity of the sentencing order – On the basis of mitigating
circumstances, the death penalty commuted to life sentence till the
remainder of life without remission. [Paras 7, 10, 13]
List of Websites
https://home.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/alincolnbio.htm;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antecedent
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1723
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
List of Keywords
Death Penalty; Murder; Panchsheel Principles.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
877-878 of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2017 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLRC No. 2 of 2014 and CRLA
No. 196 of 2014
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dr. Yug Mohit Choudhary, Ms. Payoshi Roy, K. Paari Vendhan,
Siddhartha, Ms. Ragini Ahuja, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian,
G. Sriram, Bharathimohan M.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Prateek K. Chadha, A.A.G., V. N. Raghupathy, Sreekar Aechuri,
Ms. Mythili S, Ms. Surbhi Soni, Aniket Chauhaan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 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
1 https://home.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/alincolnbio.htm
1724 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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. Also, by
the accused seeking setting aside the conviction under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 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 Puttur4 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 Krithika5. 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
2 Hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’
3 Hereafter ‘I.P.C.’
4 Hereafter ‘Trial Court’
5 Hereafter ‘deceased children’
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1725
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
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 relatives, who advised
approaching the authorities.
Eventually, with the assistance of various persons, the bodies of
the deceased children were found in the water tank in the gardens
of PW-7. PW-1 set the law in motion by registering the FIR in
Crime No.56/2010 on 17th June, 2010. The appellant-convict was
apprehended at Rama Lodge in Puttur. Chargesheet was filed on
20th August, 2010. Here only it is clarified that the present appeals
deals only with the murder of the two children and, in relation to the
other deceased, the accused already stands tried separately.
PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS
4. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents
and 10 material objects in evidence. On behalf of the defence, no
other evidence apart from the exhibition of one document, during the
course of the cross-examination of PW-16, was led. The Trial Court
framed five issues which are extracted hereinunder:
“1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the
homicidal death of the children of the accused
Bhuvanraj and Krithika?
1726 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the motive
against the accused?
3. Whether the prosecution is able to prove that, on
16-06-2010 in he afternoon the accused picked his
children Bhuvanraj and Krithika from his house at
Mangalore with a soleintention of committing their
murder, brough them to Ardamoole of Panaje Village
of Puttur Taluk drowned them in water tank situated
in the areca garden of PW7 Mr. SatyanarayanaPrasad,
resulting their death?
4. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence
U/Sec.302 of IPC against the accused?
5. What Order or relief?”
On the first issue, reliance is placed on the testimonies of PW1-Mr.
P. Aithappa Naika, PW2-Smt. Sundari, PW3-Mr. Dayananda, PW4-
Mr. Mahalinga Naika, PW5-Panch witness, PW6-Mr. Kripashankar,
PW7-Mr. A.R. Sathyanarayana Prasad, PW8-Mr. Keshava Moorthy,
PW9-Mr. P.S. Firoze, PW10-Mr. Ramesh K., PW11-Dr. Geethalaxmi,
PW12-Dr. Deepak Rai. It is recorded that, while searching for the
deceased children, PWs 1 to 3 and 9 arrived at Ardamole. They
got in touch with PW-4 and, ultimately, along with PW-7, found the
bodies floating in water.
PW-12, Dr. Deepak Rai, concluded that the death of the children was
due to drowning in water. Such a conclusion was supported by the
evidence of PW-11 Dr Geethalaxmi. It was further established by the
evidence of PW-4 that the appellant-convict was originally a resident
of Ardamole. These circumstances along with the consideration of
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the homicidal death was
proved.
4.1. The next question was that of motive. In determining the same,
reference is made to the statements of Smt. Sundari (PW-2),
Mr. P. Mohan (PW-19). The conclusion of the Trial Court is as
below: -
“39. Now the totality of the evidence did not point
out that for the reason of Ms. Savitha fell in love with
PW19 which was not acceptable to the accused,
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1727
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
who expected Ms.Savitha to respect him properly
by obliging his words and in doing so she was
compelled with disassociate with PW19 by braking
her relationship with him – and to take brake her
proposal to marry PW19. When he has expected
the assistance of his wife PW2 to mend the ways of
Ms. Savitha which did not give any positive result as
the accused was padfied and he was asked to keep
quite from the affairs of Ms. Savitha, the accused
himself intervened with the affairs of Ms. Savitha
in the indirect manner by calling PW19 expressing
dissatisfaction about their marriage proposal and
accused made attempts to see that the relationship
between Ms. Savitha and PW19 breaks away by
means of transfer of PW19. The accused though
successful in getting transfer of PW19 from one
section to another Section, as Ms. Savitha and
PW19 decided to go ahead with their proposed
marriage, as a last resort the accused meddle with
PW2 compelled her to convince Ms. Savitha to take
brake from the proposed marriage as PW2 did advise
her husband that the parents and brothers of Ms,
Savitha will take care of her affairs and asking him
to keep quite, accused used the life of the children
and himself as weapon of offence against PW2 and
for this background leading to death of the children
explained clear version of the prosecution. There are
no other hypothesis which can be possible to take
out from the evidence as well the defence from the
ocular evidence on record. Hence the motive for the
incident has been explained by the prosecution is
in the manner proposed. In the result point No.2 is
answered in the Affirmative.”
4.2. The question next to be considered was whether, when the
appellant-convict picked up the deceased children from his
house in Mangalore, the sole intention was of committing their
murders. It was noted that the case rests on circumstantial
evidence. The circumstances, listed by the prosecution as
pointing cumulatively to the guilt of the appellant-convict, are -
1728 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“78. Now the prosecution has proposed several chains
of circumstances which are
1. Arrival of the accused to Mangalore on 16-06-2010;
2) Accused moving with the children from Mangaldore
to Ardamoole in a taxi belongs to PW9;
3) The accused was seen together with the children
at Ardamoole and he was seen alone at Ardamoole
moving towards Puttur;
4) The accused sending SMS messages to PW2
indicating the fate of himself as well as the children
and directing her to do certain act as her fate,
5) PW2 meeting PW9, who taking them to Ardamoole
where with the assistance of PW4, 6, 7 the dead
bodies of the children was found in the pond of PW7,
6) thereafter the accused was found stayed at Hotel
Rama at Puttur and he has been apprehended on
17-06-2010,
7) homicidal death of the children,
8) motive for the incident and
9) failure on the part of the accused to offer explanation
for the incriminating evidence appeared against him:”
4.3. It was held that the circumstances did indeed point to the guilt
of the appellant and that the defence could not point to any
alternative hypothesis to establish his innocence. He was in
the company of the deceased children and none else, hence
the application of the last seen theory - he had to explain that
since they were with him, and a short time later they were
found to be deceased, it was incumbent upon him to furnish
an explanation. Since none is forthcoming, all circumstances
considered, the chain is completed.
4.4. Qua the fourth question it is held that none of the exceptions
mentioned in Section 300 I.P.C. are attracted in this case, and
as such, essential ingredients of Section 302 I.P.C. were met,
warranting his conviction thereunder.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1729
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
4.5. As such, it was held that the prosecution had proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, vide order of sentencing
dated 3rd December 2013, the Court balanced the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances, to conclude that the act of
the appellant-convict did indeed fall into the rarest category,
deserving the harshest penalty known to the criminal justice
system, i.e., the penalty of death.
5. As per the requirement of law, the matter traveled to the High
Court in confirmation proceedings. The appellant-convict also filed
an appeal. The High Court, having heard the parties, held that his
arrival at Mangalore, taking his kids around the city and eventually
to the gardens of PW-7, and the short time gap between when
the children and the appellant-convict were seen together and the
discovery of the deceased children’s bodies, i.e., three circumstances
taken together are sufficient to drive home the guilt of the accused.
In doing so, the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7
and PW-9 have been relied upon. Having observed thus, the Court
then went on to make certain observations regarding the messages
and call records produced. An objection to the effect that the same
are inadmissible in Court, and the Trial Court ought not to have
considered the same in the absence of a certificate under Section
65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was raised, however, the
same was cast aside, holding that their production was not as a piece
of substantive evidence, and instead, was used to corroborate the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, and also to establish the movements
of the appellant-convict. It was held as under –
“31. With regard to the contents of SMS are concerned,
we fully approve the procedure adopted by the learned
Sessions Judge in bringing on record the contents of
these SMS. We have perused the lower court records.
It is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has passed a
detailed order on the applications made by the prosecution
under Sections 3, 62 and 65B of the Evidence Act and
Sections 230 and 311 Cr.P.C. on 19.4.2013. Further, the
proceedings dated 22.10.2013 reveal that M.Os 1 and 4
viz., the mobiles which were seized by the Investigating
agency, were opened in the open court. These mobile
phones were charged and SMS therein were transcribed
by the court in the open court. These transcriptions were
1730 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
very much available to the accused at the time of cross-
examination of the witnesses. Therefore, it does not like
in the mouth of the accused now to contend that reliance
on this material is illegal or contrary to the procedure
prescribed under the Evidence Act. Even otherwise the
law is well settled that objection regarding the proof of
documents if not taken at the time when the document is
produced before the court, the party cannot be permitted
to raise the said objection at the appeal stage. In SONU@
AMAR vs. STATE OF HARYANA (2017 SCC ONLINE
SC 765), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to
consider such an issue…”
“32. The accused had full and ample opportunity to explain
the circumstance of SMS sent by him. The accused having
not offered any explanation, the trial court was justified in
placing reliance on the contents of these messages. The
Trial Court has reproduced the contents of these messages
in the impugned judgment in verbatim and we do not find it
necessary to burden the record of reproducing them over
again. Suffice it to note that the author of these SMS and
call records have been proved and these SMS lend suitable
corroboration to the testimony of PW-2 that accused sent
a false message through the Mobile (M.O.6) of deceased
Savitha, after her death misleading PW-2 that she was
admitted in Manipal Hospital and further that after drowning
the children in the tank, he sent her the message through
his mobile M.O.4 that he had already sent his mother-in-
law, sister-in-law and children to heaven.”
On motive, it was observed that the differences stemmed from the
opposing stands taken by PW-2 and other members of her family
regarding Ms. Savitha’s relationship with Mr. P. Mohan (PW-19). The
appellant-convict was of the view that the said relationship should be
disapproved of, and as a result broken off, but this position did not
get any support from others and as such, he resolved to eliminate
the members of PW-2’s family and his own children.
As such, it was concluded as under :
“Thus, on ultimate analysis of all of the above facts and
circumstances, the gravity and the magnitude of the
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1731
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
offences, committed by the accused, the depraved manner
in which he committed four murders including that of
his minor children, the utter lack of remorse on part of
the accused , his determination to annihilate almost all
members of the immediate family of PW.2 and the threats
issued to her and the surviving members of her family and
also in the larger interest of the society, the Trial Court
was justified in awarding death sentence to the accused.
We do not find any good reason to commute the death
sentence to life imprisonment with or without remission.
We do not find any mitigating circumstance warranting
commutation or to take any lenient view in the matter. On
thorough and careful consideration of the entirematerial
on record and on appraisal of all the attending facts and
circumstances as discussed above, we are of the firm view
that in the fact situation of the present case, death penalty
is the only just and appropriate punishment that requires
to be imposed on the accused. The reference made by
the Trial Court deserves to be accepted.”
6. It is clearly a case of circumstantial evidence. What needs to be
examined in such a case, no longer needs reiteration. The principles
to be applied in consideration of the evidence have been christened
the ‘Panchsheel Principles’ detailed in the Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra6 judgment, delivered by three learned
Judges of this Court. Here itself, it may be emphasized that both
the Courts below have found the circumstances to be established
against the appellant-convict. We have already discussed the same
in the preceding paragraphs. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, and perused the record, we have not been persuaded
that there is any error in the findings recorded by both the Courts
qua the guilt of the convict-appellant and the judgment on conviction.
Hence, we need not burden the record by referring to the same.
7. On the aspect of sentence, nonetheless, we are of the view that some
interference is warranted. As is well known, the final punishment to be
awarded to an accused after a conclusion of guilt being arrived at, at
trial, is to be determined after having heard the parties on sentence,
6 (1984) 4 SCC 116
1732 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and after an analysis of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Which is why, to enable parties to adequately prepare, it is desirable
that there be some gap between the pronouncement of judgment, and
the hearing on sentencing. It has, however, been held that the point
of focus in a sentencing hearing is quality and reliability of assistance
and closeness of time, itself would not render the sentence handed
down, susceptible to doubt. In other words, there exists a conflict
between judgments rendered by Benches of co-equal strength –
one, suggesting that a bifurcated hearing on sentence is necessary
(as was done in the present facts); and the other, suggesting that a
same-day hearing would not fall foul of Section 235(2), Cr.P.C. so
long as quality and reliability of the assistance on sentencing can
be ensured. This conflict has been discussed at length in Framing
Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances to
be Considered while Imposing Death Sentences, In re7. Here,
the time aspect is undoubtedly met. Be that as it may, considering
the importance of the issue, we reiterate the reference to the larger
Bench in the said decision, for certainty on this issue is essential
for proper and just adjudication in trials.
8. At this juncture, it is important to take note of the circumstances
taken into account by the Trial Court –
S.No. Mitigating Circumstances Aggravating Circumstances
1. Appellant-convict was employed Manner of murder of sister
as bank manager and could in law and mother in law
have been a role model for and destruction of evidence
society thereof.
2. Pre-meditated, unprovoked
murder of his minor children
of tender years
3. He meddled with the
witnesses, showing criminal
intent, and wanting to save
himself from punishment.
7 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1246
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1733
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
OUR CONSIDERATION
9. A perusal of the order of sentencing reveals that the learned counsel
for the appellant-convict had presented other circumstances, which,
in his submission, were mitigating in nature, but the same were not
taken into consideration by the Trial Court. They are :
a) lack of criminal antecedents;
b) his behaviour, good relations with family have been testified to
by prosecution witnesses;
c) as a form of repentance for his actions, he desires to serve
the elderly- this commitment is used to show possibility of
reformation;
d) he had no ill intentions towards the family of PW-2 since he
was the one who arranged for a job for Ms. Savitha;
e) it is a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence.
10. The absence of criminal intent as a mitigating circumstance was
negated by the Court observing that during Trial, he had tried to
meddle with the witnesses and influence them - this shows the
presence of criminal intent, leading to the registration of case in C.C
No.3080 of 2012, under Section 506 I.P.C., which on the said date was
pending on the file of 3rd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur (for
attempting to intimidate PW-2) and another under Section 195A and
Section 507 I.P.C. in SC No.136 of 2013 (for attempting to intimidate
PW-6) before the Court that dealt with the trial for Section 302 I.P.C.
We find this argument difficult to accept. The word antecedent, as is
obvious, means “a preceding event, condition or cause8”. Therefore,
to use something that did not exist at a prior point in time, to deny
him the benefit of the consideration of lack of criminal antecedents
as a mitigating circumstance, was not justified. Antecedents are
of two types : one is pretrial and the other is during or post-trial.
The appellant convict has no antecedents, however, during trial he
attempted to intimidate witnesses, as we have already discussed.
11. The behaviour, which has been testified to be good by the prosecution
witnesses themselves, is also a factor which ought to have been
8 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antecedent
1734 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
given due consideration. That, along with the fact that he was the
one who got Ms. Savitha the job, cumulatively points to decent
behavior by the convict-appellant. Insofar as the point of the desire
to serve people of advanced age, we are of the view that the Trial
Court was correct in rejecting that as a mitigating circumstance.
Such a determination can also be an afterthought- a mere plea
without any foundation or substance cannot accrue to any benefit.
Had the Courts below through appreciation of testimony found that
the appellant-convict was so inclined and, thereafter, such a plea
had been made, positive consideration thereof would be warranted.
It was not so.
12. The ground of the case being based on circumstantial evidence,
although, addressed in the main judgment, is amiss in the order of
sentencing. A Three-Judge Bench in Shatrughna Baban Meshram
v. State of Maharashtra9, considered this question in detail. It was
concluded as hereinbelow :
“49. These cases discussed in preceding paragraphs show
that though it is accepted that the observations in Swamy
Shraddananda (2) [Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of
Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 113]
did not lay down any firm principle that in a case involving
circumstantial evidence, imposition of death penalty would
not be permissible, a definite line of thought that where
the sentence of death is to be imposed on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, the circumstantial evidence must
be such which leads to an exceptional case was accepted
by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Kalu Khan [Kalu
Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 16 SCC 492 : (2015) 4
SCC (Cri) 871] . As a matter of fact, it accepted the caution
expressed by Sinha, J. in Swamy Shraddananda v. State
of Karnataka [Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka,
(2007) 12 SCC 288, para 87 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 322]
and the conclusions in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State
of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
1150] to restate the principles with clarity in its decision.
9 (2021) 1 SCC 596
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1735
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
50. It can therefore be summed up:
50.1. It is not as if imposition of death penalty is
impermissible to be awarded in circumstantial evidence
cases.
50.2. If the circumstantial evidence is of an unimpeachable
character in establishing the guilt of the accused and
leads to an exceptional case or the evidence sufficiently
convinces the judicial mind that the option of a sentence
lesser than death penalty is foreclosed, the death penalty
can be imposed.
51. It must therefore be held that merely because the
instant case is based on circumstantial evidence there is
no reason to commute the death sentence. However, the
matter must be considered in the light of the aforestated
principles and see whether the circumstantial evidence
is of unimpeachable character and the option of a lesser
sentence is foreclosed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. As is clear from the above, the award of death penalty is not
precluded. The rule only is that the circumstantial evidence ought to
be unimpeachable, and the matter at hand be an exceptional case,
or the evidence be so convincing that the option of imposition of
any other penalty stands foreclosed in the judicial mind. Therefore,
non-consideration of this ground cannot be said to be damaging to
the sanctity of the sentencing order.
14. It has been said in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka10
that “The absolute irrevocability of the death penalty renders it
completely incompatible to the slightest hesitation on the part of the
Court.” Given that recently, this Bench in Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State
of U.P.11 considered that multiple factors, including the absence of
criminal antecedents, may be a ground to commute the sentence
of the accused.
10 (2008) 13 SCC 767
11 2025 SCC OnLine 237
1736 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
15. To appreciate the factors that can be considered in commutation
of sentence, let us undertake an analysis of cases where a similar
approach has been taken by this Court, i.e., the sentence of death
stands commuted to imprisonment for life till the last breath -
Part-I
WHEREIN DEATH PENALTY WAS COMMUTED TO LIFE
SENTENCE WITHOUT REMISSION FOR THE REMAINDER
OF THE CONVICT’S LIFE
S. Case JJ. Brief Facts Reasons for
No. Details Commuting Sentence
1. Swamy Appellant killed • The manner of
Shraddananda wife who was the committing murder
(2) granddaughter of did not cause any
v. a Dewan. mental or physical
State of 3 pain to the victim.
Subsequently,
Karnataka
he sold off her • Appellant confessed
(2008)13 SCC
properties and his guilt before the
767
was absconding. High Court. @54
2. Sebastian Appellant • Appellant was
v. kidnapped a 24-years-old at the
State of Kerala 2-years-old girl time of the incident.
(2010) 1 SCC 2 from her house,
58 committed rape
on her and then
murdered her.
3. B. Kumar Appellant worked • Appellant’s motive
v. as a mason in was not to commit
Inspector of the house of the murder but to
Police victims. commit rape on the
(2015) 2 SCC prosecutrix. @18
He committed
346
rape on a woman, • No possibility of him
3 murdered a boy having committed
whom he had any another
tied; being an offence since he
eyewitness to the was apprehended
act of rape, and 6 years after the
further injured an incident. @21
eyewitness to the
murder.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1737
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
4. ‘X’ Appellant Appellant suffering from
v. murdered two severe mental illness
State of minor girls after since 1994, i.e., post-
Maharashtra committing rape conviction, during his
(2019) 7 SCC 1 3 on them. long incarceration as a
death row convict, i.e.,
The deceased
17 years. @74
victims were
the Appellant’s
neighbour.
5. Sudam Petitioner • Nature of
v. murdered his wife, circumstantial
State of his two children evidence is a
Maharashtra, and the two mitigating factor in
(2019) 9 SCC children from his the instant case.
388 wife’s extramarital @21
3 affair.
• No medical
evidence to show
that Petitioner had
crushed the face of
deceased to avoid
identification. @16
6. Ravishankar Appellant • Key witness made
v. kidnapped a contradictory
State of M.P. 13-year-old statement
(2019) 9 SCC girl. Thereafter,
689 he committed
rape on her and
murdered her
3 by throttling.
Subsequently,
he destroyed
evidence by
throwing her half-
naked body in a
dry well.
7. Vijay Kumar Appellant • No criminal
v. murdered 3 minor antecedents.
State of J&K children and
• Not a professional
(2019) 12 SCC caused injury to
3 killer. @12
791 the remaining
minor child and
their father.
1738 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
8. Rajendra Appellant Prosecution failed to
Pralhadrao committed rape produce available DNA
Wasnik and murder of a evidence and other
v. 3-year-old girl. material evidence
State of before the Trial Court.
Maharashtra @57
(2019) 12 SCC 3
Possibility of
460 reformation and
rehabilitation not
considered by lower
courts. @79
9. Mohd. Mannan Petitioner- • Legal aid provided to
v. accused was a him was inadequate.
State of Bihar mason working at @ 38
(2019) 16 SCC the house of an • No opportunity given
584 8-year-old girl. He to the Petitioner to
kidnapped, raped illustrate mitigating
and murdered the factors. @ 39
child.
• No evidence
Case is based showing murder was
on circumstantial premeditated. @47
evidence and
alleged extra- • No DNA analysis
3 judicial confession of the sperm found
made by the on the victim’s body
Petitioner. @57 conducted by the
prosecution. @53
• Psychiatrist report
shows possibility of
neurological and/
or mental health
issues. @68
• Post conviction
mental health of the
Petitioner a relevant
consideration. @84
10. Dattatraya Appellant is a • No evidence to
v. 50-year-old man show that Appellant
State of who committed took victim to his
Maharashtra 3 rape on a 5-year- residence. @114
(2020) 14 SCC old girl which
290 resulted in her
death.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1739
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
• No evidence to
show that murder
was intended or
premeditated.
Appellant did not
carry any weapon.
• Possibility of the
Appellant being
unaware that sexual
assault would result
in death cannot be
ruled out. @123
• Legal assistance
to the Appellant
ineffective. @129
• Question of reform
not considered by
the Trial Court.
@130
11. Jagdish Petitioner • Petitioner in custody
v. murdered his wife since 14 years.
State of M.P., and five children.
• Unexplained
(2020) 14 SCC 3 delay of 4 years
156
in forwarding the
mercy petition by
State. @12
12. Rabbu Appellant • Appellant brought
v. committed rape up by single father,
State of M.P., on a minor girl comes from a
2024 SCC and set her on backward socio-
OnLine SC 2933 fire, thereby killing economic stratum of
her. society, was 22-year-
3 old at the time of
incident, has no
criminal antecedents
and possibility of
reform cannot be
ruled out.
@15-16
1740 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
13. Deen Dayal Appellant • Absence of previous
Tiwari murdered his wife criminal antecedents.
v. and four minor • Appellant’s behavior
State of U.P. daughters with an in custody has been
2025 SCC axe. “satisfactory” and
OnLine SC 237 “normal,” noting
that he has been
3 performing assigned
duties without any
adverse conduct.
• Nothing on record
suggests that
the Appellant
is incapable of
rehabilitation. @20
PART – II
CASES WHEREIN LIFE SENTENCE HAS BEEN IMPOSED TILL
THE END OF THE CONVICT’S NATURAL LIFE SUBJECT TO
REMISSION
S. Case Details JJ. Brief Facts Reasons for Commuting
No. Sentence
1. Mulla Appellants • One of the Appellants
v. abducted and is 65-years-old and in
State of U.P. murdered five custody since 14 years.
(2010) 3 SCC persons. @79
508 2 • Appellants belong to
an extremely poor
background.
• Possibility of reformation
not ruled out. @81
2. Rameshbhai Appellant • Appellant was 27-years-
Chandubhai murdered and old at the time of the
Rathod (2) committed incident.
v. rape on a • Possibility of reformation
State of 3 minor girl who not ruled out.
Gujarat belonged to the
(2011) 2 SCC apartment of • Appellant not granted
764 which he was a adequate opportunity to
watchman. plead on the question of
sentence. @7
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1741
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
3. Sandesh Appellant • Appellant was 23-years-
v. committed old at the time of
State of robbery during incident.
Maharashtra which he • Murder not
(2013) 2 SCC 2 fatally injured premeditated.
479 a pregnant
• Appellant not a
woman and her
hardened criminal.
mother-in-law.
Subsequently, • Good conduct in jail.
he murdered
another relative
of the victims
during the
commission of
the robbery.
4. Mohinder Appellant • Appellant did not harm
Singh murdered his other daughter while
v. his wife and committing the crime.
State of daughter • Appellant is a poor
Punjab because of a man unable to sustain
(2013) 3 SCC previous case himself.
294 2 filed by his wife
• Probability of
against the
reformation not
Appellant for
foreclosed. @28
committing rape
on his minor
daughter.
5. Deepak Rai 3 accused • Death sentence
v. committed commuted only in
State of Bihar murder of respect of A-3, i.e.,
(2013) 10 SCC 3 informant’s Bacha Babu Rai.
421 wife and five • No overt act attributed
children. to A-3.
6. Vyas Ram Appellants killed • Only 1 witness has
v. 35 persons attributed the role of
State of Bihar and injured 7 slitting throats to the
(2013) 12 SCC belonging to Appellant.
349 2 the a particular • Incident took place in
community. 1992 – charges framed
in 2004.
1742 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7. Sunil Appellant • Appellant suffered from
Damodar murdered economic and psychic
Gaikwad his wife and compulsions.
v. two sons. He • Possibility of reformation
State of 2 attempted to cannot be ruled out.
Maharashtra murder his
(2014) 1 SCC daughter but • No criminal
129 she survived. antecedents.
• Appellant was living in
abject poverty.
8. Mahesh Appellants • Appellants were
Dhanaji murdered two 23-29-years-old at the
Shinde minors and time of incident.
v. seven persons • Appellants lived in acute
State of 3 after which poverty.
Maharashtra the Appellants
(2014) 4 SCC robbed them • Appellants have
292 pursued further
education and
meaningful endeavours
during custody. @38
9. Sushil Appellant • No criminal
Sharma murdered his antecedents.
v. wife with a • No evidence to show
State (NCT of firearm and absence of possibility of
Delhi) burnt the body reformation.
(2014) 4 SCC in a tandoor.
3 • Appellant has spent 10
317
years in death cell.
• Appellant is the only
son of his parents who
are old and infirm.
@105
10. Mohd. The incident • The acts committed
Jamiludin pertains to were not directed
Nasir attack on police against the sovereignty
v. personnel of the State. Hence, it
State of West wherein 5 could not be equated
Bengal 2 police officials with precedents such as
(2014) 7 SCC were killed Navjot Sandhu, Ajmal
443 and 13 others Kasab or Mohd. Arif.
were injured
along with other
civilians.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1743
Ramesh A. Naika v.
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
Death penalty • Aftab was the
of accused mastermind behind the
Aftab commuted entire operation – did
to life not commit the act
imprisonment till himself. He made the
the end of his other accused commit
life. the murders through.
11. Arvind Singh Appellant • Appellants were
v. kidnapped an 19-years-old at the time
8-years-old of the incident.
State of boy to demand
Maharashtra 3 • No criminal
ransom. antecedents.
(2021) 11 SCC Subsequently, A-1 surrendered at the
1 he murdered first opportunity. @98
the boy.
16. Considering the above exposition on instances, where this Court
has found it fit to commute the death sentence into imprisonment for
the remainder of natural life, and keeping in view the factors that :
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,
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.
17. We 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 us, or we, 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
1744 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
their near and dear ones in pursuing their desires. We see nothing
wrong with 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. But be that as it may, 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, which as discussed supra,
was not done properly.
CONCLUSION
18. The appeals are, therefore, partly allowed to the extent of the sentence
modification. In the result, the appellant-convict’s conviction for the
murders of Master Bhuvanraj, and Miss Krithika, is maintained, but
he shall now await his natural end, without remission, in the confines
of a penitentiary.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Kanu Agarwal, Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Death penalty"Sign in to search