2025 INSC 303 Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 1 of 28

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.877 -878 OF 2020

RAMESH A. NAIKA … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH

COURT OF KARNATAKA ETC. … RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

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

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 2 of 28

parents

1

”. In the classical traditions of India, however, parents

are placed on a higher pedestal, at an exalted position, as their

word equals the word of God. While it is true that in modern

times, we refrain from making such comparisons, nonetheless, it

cannot be said that the irreplaceability, essentiality, importance,

and desirousness of the love, affection, and stewardship of

parents, has been watered down in any way. One is forced to

wonder, in the facts of this case, how these cherished ideals could

have been entirely absent.

THE APPEALS

2. These appeals challenge judgment dated 22

nd

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, 1973

2

. Also, by the accused seeking setting aside the

conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

3

and sentence of death, respectively imposed by judgment and

order dated 26

th

November 2013 and 3

rd

December 2013 by the

V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshin Kannada,

1

https://home.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/alincolnbio.htm

2

Hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’

3

Hereafter ‘I.P.C.’

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 3 of 28

Mangaluru sitting at Puttur

4

in Sessions Case No.28 of 2011.

FACTS

3. The facts, as can be understood from the record are that :

The appellant-convict was a respectable member of society

working as a Manager at the Solapur Branch of the Punjab

National Bank. He was married to Smt. Sundari (PW-2) who was

herself an employee of the State Bank of Mysore, Mangalore

Branch. They had two children – 10-year-old Bhuvanraj and 3½-

year-old Krithika

5

. It is alleged that the appellant-convict was

dissatisfied with the behaviour and life choices of his sister-in-

law, Ms. Savitha whom he had gotten a job at the Provident Fund

office, who fell in love with her co-worker Mr. P. Mohan (PW-

19) and wanted to pursue matrimonial life with him. Further, the

appellant-accused first tried to get his wife to dissuade

Ms. Savitha from going down her chosen path but was persuaded

to refrain from interfering therein. Subsequently, while visiting

Tumkur (residence of Ms. Savitha, and Mrs. Saraswathi, mother-

in-law, and ancestral village of the appellant-accused) and

Mangalore (where Smt. Sundari resided with the deceased

children), from Solapur where he was posted, when this issue

again came up, he once again found Smt. Sundari not to be

4

Hereafter ‘Trial Court’

5

Hereafter ‘deceased children’

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 4 of 28

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

16

th

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 17

th

June, 2010. The appellant-

convict was apprehended at Rama Lodge in Puttur. Chargesheet

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 5 of 28

was filed on 20

th

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?

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?”

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 6 of 28

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, 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

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 7 of 28

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 -

“78. Now the prosecution has proposed several chains of

circumstances which are

1. Arrival of the accused to Mangalore on 16-06-2010;

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 8 of 28

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.

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 9 of 28

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.

4.5. As such, it was held that the prosecution had proved

its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, vide order of

sentencing dated 3

rd

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,

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 10 of 28

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 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

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 11 of 28

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

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

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 12 of 28

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 Maharashtra

6

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

6

(1984) 4 SCC 116

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 13 of 28

heard the parties on sentence, 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 re

7

. 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 –

7

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1246

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 14 of 28

S.No. Mitigating

Circumstances

Aggravating Circumstances

1. Appellant-convict was

employed as bank manager

and could have been a role

model for society

Manner of murder of sister in

law and mother in law and

destruction of evidence

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.

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;

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 15 of 28

(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 3

rd

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

cause

8

”. 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.

8

http:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antecedent

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 16 of 28

11. The behaviour, which has been testified to be good by the

prosecution witnesses themselves, is also a factor which ought to

have been 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 Maharashtra

9

, 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

9

(2021) 1 SCC 596

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 17 of 28

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.

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

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 18 of 28

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

Karnataka

10

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.

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.

No.

Case

Details

JJ. Brief Facts Reasons for

Commuting Sentence

10

(2008) 13 SCC 767

11

2025 SCC OnLine 237

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 19 of 28

1. Swamy

Shraddana

nda (2)

v.

State of

Karnataka

(2008)13

SCC 767

3

Appellant killed

wife who was the

granddaughter of a

Dewan.

Subsequently, he

sold off her

properties and was

absconding.

• The manner of

committing murder

did not cause any

mental or physical

pain to the victim.

• Appellant confessed

his guilt before the

High Court. @54

2. Sebastian

v.

State of

Kerala

(2010) 1

SCC 58

2

Appellant

kidnapped a 2-

years-old girl from

her house,

committed rape on

her and then

murdered her.

• Appellant was 24-

years-old at the time

of the incident.

3. B. Kumar

v.

Inspector

of Police

(2015) 2

SCC 346

3

Appellant worked

as a mason in the

house of the

victims.

He committed rape

on a woman,

murdered a boy

whom he had tied;

being an eyewitness

to the act of rape,

and further injured

an eyewitness to the

murder.

• Appellant’s motive

was not to commit

murder but to commit

rape on the

prosecutrix. @18

• No possibility of him

having committed any

another offence since

he was apprehended 6

years after the

incident. @21

4. ‘X’

v.

State of

Maharasht

ra

(2019) 7

SCC 1

3

Appellant

murdered two

minor girls after

committing rape on

them.

The deceased

victims were the

Appellant’s

neighbour.

Appellant suffering from

severe mental illness

since 1994, i.e., post-

conviction, during his

long incarceration as a

death row convict, i.e., 17

years. @74

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 20 of 28

5. Sudam

v.

State of

Maharasht

ra,

(2019) 9

SCC 388

3

Petitioner murdered

his wife, his two

children and the

two children from

his wife’s

extramarital affair.

• Nature of

circumstantial

evidence is a

mitigating factor in

the instant case. @21

• No medical evidence

to show that

Petitioner had crushed

the face of deceased

to avoid

identification. @16

6. Ravishank

ar

v.

State of

M.P.

(2019) 9

SCC 689

3

Appellant

kidnapped a 13-

year-old girl.

Thereafter, he

committed rape on

her and murdered

her by throttling.

Subsequently, he

destroyed evidence

by throwing her

half-naked body in

a dry well.

• Key witness made

contradictory

statement

7. Vijay

Kumar

v.

State of

J&K

(2019) 12

SCC 791

3

Appellant

murdered 3 minor

children and caused

injury to the

remaining minor

child and their

father.

• No criminal

antecedents.

• Not a professional

killer. @12

8. Rajendra

Pralhadrao

Wasnik

v.

State of

Maharasht

ra

(2019) 12

SCC 460

3

Appellant

committed rape and

murder of a 3-year-

old girl.

Prosecution failed to

produce available DNA

evidence and other

material evidence before

the Trial Court. @57

Possibility of reformation

and rehabilitation not

considered by lower

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 21 of 28

courts. @79

9. Mohd.

Mannan

v.

State of

Bihar

(2019) 16

SCC 584

3

Petitioner-accused

was a mason

working at the

house of an 8-year-

old girl. He

kidnapped, raped

and murdered the

child.

Case is based on

circumstantial

evidence and

alleged extra-

judicial confession

made by the

Petitioner. @57

• Legal aid provided to

him was inadequate.

@ 38

• No opportunity given

to the Petitioner to

illustrate mitigating

factors. @ 39

• No evidence showing

murder was

premeditated. @47

• No DNA analysis of

the sperm found on

the victim’s body

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

v.

State of

Maharasht

ra

(2020) 14

SCC 290

3

Appellant is a 50-

year-old man who

committed rape on

a 5-year-old girl

which resulted in

her death.

• No evidence to show

that Appellant took

victim to his

residence. @114

• 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

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 22 of 28

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

v.

State of

M.P.,

(2020) 14

SCC 156

3

Petitioner murdered

his wife and five

children.

• Petitioner in custody

since 14 years.

• Unexplained delay of

4 years in forwarding

the mercy petition by

State. @12

12. Rabbu

v.

State of

M.P.,

2024 SCC

OnLine SC

2933

3

Appellant

committed rape on

a minor girl and set

her on fire, thereby

killing her.

• Appellant brought up

by single father,

comes from a

backward socio-

economic stratum of

society, was 22-year-

old at the time of

incident, has no

criminal antecedents

and possibility of

reform cannot be

ruled out.

@15-16

13. Deen Dayal

Tiwari

v.

State of

U.P.

2025 SCC

OnLine SC

237

3

Appellant

murdered his wife

and four minor

daughters with an

axe.

• Absence of previous

criminal antecedents.

• Appellant's behavior

in custody has been

“satisfactory” and

“normal,” noting that

he has been

performing assigned

duties without any

adverse conduct.

• Nothing on record

suggests that the

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 23 of 28

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.

No.

Case Details JJ. Brief Facts Reasons for Commuting

Sentence

1. Mulla

v.

State of U.P.

(2010) 3 SCC

508

2

Appellants abducted

and murdered five

persons.

• One of the Appellants is 65-

years-old and in custody

since 14 years. @79

• Appellants belong to an

extremely poor background.

• Possibility of reformation

not ruled out. @81

2. Rameshbhai

Chandubhai

Rathod (2)

v.

State of

Gujarat

(2011) 2 SCC

764

3

Appellant murdered

and committed rape

on a minor girl who

belonged to the

apartment of which

he was a watchman.

• Appellant was 27-years-old

at the time of the incident.

• Possibility of reformation

not ruled out.

• Appellant not granted

adequate opportunity to

plead on the question of

sentence. @7

3. Sandesh

v.

State of

Maharashtra

(2013) 2 SCC

479

2

Appellant

committed robbery

during which he

fatally injured a

pregnant woman

and her mother-in-

law. Subsequently,

he murdered another

relative of the

victims during the

commission of the

robbery.

• Appellant was 23-years-old

at the time of incident.

• Murder not premeditated.

• Appellant not a hardened

criminal.

• Good conduct in jail.

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 24 of 28

4. Mohinder

Singh

v.

State of Punjab

(2013) 3 SCC

294

2

Appellant murdered

his wife and

daughter because of

a previous case filed

by his wife against

the Appellant for

committing rape on

his minor daughter.

• Appellant did not harm his

other daughter while

committing the crime.

• Appellant is a poor man

unable to sustain himself.

• Probability of reformation

not foreclosed. @28

5. Deepak Rai

v.

State of Bihar

(2013) 10 SCC

421

3

3 accused

committed murder

of informant’s wife

and five children.

• Death sentence commuted

only in respect of A-3, i.e.,

Bacha Babu Rai.

• No overt act attributed to A-

3.

6. Vyas Ram

v.

State of Bihar

(2013) 12 SCC

349

2

Appellants killed 35

persons and injured

7 belonging to the a

particular

community.

• Only 1 witness has

attributed the role of slitting

throats to the Appellant.

• Incident took place in 1992

– charges framed in 2004.

7. Sunil Damodar

Gaikwad

v.

State of

Maharashtra

(2014) 1 SCC

129

2

Appellant murdered

his wife and two

sons. He attempted

to murder his

daughter but she

survived.

• Appellant suffered from

economic and psychic

compulsions.

• Possibility of reformation

cannot be ruled out.

• No criminal antecedents.

• Appellant was living in

abject poverty.

8. Mahesh

Dhanaji Shinde

v.

State of

Maharashtra

(2014) 4 SCC

292

3

Appellants

murdered two

minors and seven

persons after which

the Appellants

robbed them

• Appellants were 23-29-

years-old at the time of

incident.

• Appellants lived in acute

poverty.

• Appellants have pursued

further education and

meaningful endeavours

during custody. @38

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 25 of 28

9. Sushil Sharma

v.

State (NCT of

Delhi)

(2014) 4 SCC

317

3

Appellant murdered

his wife with a

firearm and burnt

the body in a

tandoor.

• No criminal antecedents.

• No evidence to show

absence of possibility of

reformation.

• Appellant has spent 10

years in death cell.

• Appellant is the only son of

his parents who are old and

infirm. @105

10. Mohd.

Jamiludin

Nasir

v.

State of West

Bengal

(2014) 7 SCC

443

2

The incident

pertains to attack on

police personnel

wherein 5 police

officials were killed

and 13 others were

injured along with

other civilians.

Death penalty of

accused Aftab

commuted to life

imprisonment till

the end of his life.

• The acts committed were

not directed against the

sovereignty of the State.

Hence, it could not be

equated with precedents

such as Navjot Sandhu,

Ajmal Kasab or Mohd. Arif.

• Aftab was the mastermind

behind the entire operation

– did not commit the act

himself. He made the other

accused commit the

murders through.

11. Arvind Singh

v.

State of

Maharashtra

(2021) 11 SCC

1

3

Appellant

kidnapped an 8-

years-old boy to

demand ransom.

Subsequently, he

murdered the boy.

• Appellants were 19-years-

old at the time of the

incident.

• No criminal antecedents.

A-1 surrendered at the first

opportunity. @98

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 :

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 26 of 28

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

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

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 27 of 28

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.

Crl.A.Nos.877-878/2020 Page 28 of 28

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

…….............………J.

(VIKRAM NATH)

..………..….............J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

.……….…............….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

New Delhi;

February 13, 2025.