Supreme Court commutes death sentence of man convicted for killing his children

The Supreme Court recently commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for murdering his two minor children [Ramesh A Naika vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.]..A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta held that while the crime was heinous, the sentencing process was flawed and hence, reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. The Court noted that the trial court and Karnataka High Court had not properly weighed mitigating factors before awarding the death penalty, thus failing to meet the strict legal standard for imposing capital punishment."The appellant-convict had no criminal antecedents had good relations with the deceased persons and all mitigating circumstances were not considered by the trial court," the Supreme Court noted.Hence, it held that the sentence of life imprisonment without remission was more appropriate given the mitigating factors..The bench emphasized that the judicial approach to sentencing in capital punishment cases demands a careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors, and that this balance had not been appropriately struck in the present case. .The convict Ramesh A Naika was a former bank manager. He was accused of committing the murders in June 2010 after a dispute with his wife’s family over the relationship choices of his sister-in-law. He allegedly disapproved of his sister-in-law’s relationship and wanted to impose his authority over family matters.According to the prosecution, he first murdered his sister-in-law and mother-in-law in Tumkur village, dumping their bodies in a water sump at his house. The next day, he traveled to Mangalore, where his wife and children lived, and took his children out on the pretext of an outing. He then allegedly drowned them in a water tank in a secluded farm before sending a message to his wife, urging her to commit suicide as well.The children’s bodies were discovered the next day, following which he was arrested from a lodge in Puttur, and a case was registered against him under Section 302 IPC.The trial court, after analyzing circumstantial evidence, found him guilty and sentenced him to death penalty in 2013, classifying the crime as falling under the "rarest of rare" category. The Karnataka High Court upheld this decision in 2017, affirming that the brutality of the act warranted capital punishment.The Supreme Court acknowledged that the while the trial court had identified several aggravating factors, including the fact that the murder victims were the convict’s own children, it did not take into consideration the mitigating factors, such as his lack of prior criminal antecedents and the circumstantial nature of the evidence while awarding death sentence. .“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.”.While commuting the death sentence, the top court reiterated that mere brutality of a crime does not automatically warrant capital punishment; rather, courts must examine whether the convict is beyond reformation before imposing the death sentence. The Court found that no such analysis had been conducted by the sentencing courts, thereby violating the requirement of a balanced sentencing process. Further, it held that in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, courts must be particularly cautious before awarding the death penalty..“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.", the Court noted. .The Court further analyzed the mindset of the convict and noted that he had a sense of control over family members and was unwilling to accept personal choices made by others. The judgment criticized the deep-seated notions of familial authority and control that seemed to have motivated the crime, noting that the convict had sought to impose his will on his sister-in-law’s personal life, leading to a violent reaction when he failed to do so."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.... Whom a person falls in love with is not within the human sphere of control. It is sad that such a restrictive worldview led to these senseless acts of violence and depravity,” the Court said in the judgement. .Despite these observations, the Court emphasized that sentencing must not be based solely on the gravity of the crime but also on the principles of justice and fairness. It reiterated a long-standing doctrine that capital punishment must only be imposed when there is no other viable sentencing option left."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," the Court noted..Given the failure of the lower courts to consider mitigating factors, the Supreme Court concluded that a life sentence without remission was the appropriate punishment. “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 noted. .Senior Advocate Yug Mohit Choudhary and advocates Payoshi Roy, K Paari Vendhan, Siddhartha, Ragini Ahuja, S Prabu Ramasubramanian, G Sriram and Bharathimohan M appeared for the convict. Additional Advocate General Prateek K Chadha and advocates VN Raghupathy, Sreekar Aechuri, Mythili S, Surbhi Soni and Aniket Chauhaan appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]