'Hangman's Noose Be Taken Off, Let Him Be In Prison Till End' : Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Father Who Killed Children

Citing factors such as lack of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court recently commuted the death sentence of a man accused of killing his two minor children to life imprisonment without remission.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that the death sentence should be awarded in “rarest of rare” cases after a thorough consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Because the appellant had no criminal antecedents, had good relations with his family before the incident, and other mitigating circumstances were not considered by the Courts below, the Court relying on the precedents like Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 and Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of U.P deemed it appropriate to commute the death sentence to a life imprisonment without remission which means that the appellant have to spent rest of his life in jail.

“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.”, the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the accused-appellant was sentenced to death for killing his two minor children.

The appellant was a Bank Manager working at the PNB, who was married and had two children. He was unhappy with the life choices and behaviour of his sister-in-law (Savita) and objected to her relationship with a co-worker. He used to tell his wife (Sundari) to ask Savita to change her ways, but his wife did not support him. To teach them a lesson, the appellant killed Savita and her mother (Saraswati). He then decided to kill his children and commit suicide.  He took his children- aged 10 years and 3.5 years, and drowned them in a water tank. The present conviction was related to the killing of the children, as he was tried separately for the murders of his sister-in-law and mother-in-law.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to confirm the death sentence, he appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Courts below have not considered the mitigative and aggravating circumstances lying in his favour for commutation of death sentence to a life imprisonment.

On perusing the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol acknowledged the barbarity of the crime and the helplessness of the children, who were killed by their father; however emphasized that the death penalty should only be imposed in the "rarest of rare" cases after considering all mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

The Court stressed that factors such as lack of criminal antecedents, good behavior in custody, and the possibility of reformation can be grounds for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.

Thus, the Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence awarded to the Appellant from the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission.

Commenting on the man's murder spree triggered by his dislike for his sister-in-law's relationship, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of the principle "live and let live."

Case Title: RAMESH A. NAIKA VERSUS THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ETC.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Dr. Yug Mohit Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Payoshi Roy, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Siddhartha, Adv. Ms. Ragini Ahuja, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. G. Sriram, Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Mythili S, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv.