Ramesh A. Naika vs The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

13 February 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No(s). 877-878 of 2020

Result

Partly allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta

Citation

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1721 : 2025 INSC 303

Acts & Sections

IPC CrPC

Issue for consideration

Appellant-R, a bank manager, was convicted of murdering his two minor children, along with his sister-in-law and mother-inlaw, 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-inlaw 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.

Headnote

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: 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

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,

View Subscription Plans →