Supreme Court spares man who killed wife, three children & sister-in-law from death penalty over suspected infidelity

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on July 16, 2025, commuted the death penalty awarded to a Karnataka man for the brutal murders of his wife, sister-in-law, and three children to life imprisonment without remission. The court emphasised that while the crime was “barbaric and ruthless,” the possibility of reformation and mitigating circumstances must not be overlooked.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta delivered the ruling in the case titled Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah Vs State of Karnataka. The bench upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, citing improper consideration of the convict’s probation, conduct, behavioural, and mitigation reports by the Karnataka High Court.

Thippaiah was convicted for a horrific crime that occurred on February 25, 2017. As per the prosecution, he attacked and killed his wife Pakkeeramma, her sister Gangamma, and three children. Four of the victims died on the spot while one succumbed to injuries en route to the hospital. The crime was allegedly driven by Thippaiah’s suspicions about his wife’s fidelity and his belief that the children were not biologically his.

Eyewitnesses testified to Thippaiah’s history of domestic violence and confrontations with his wife. Several witnesses saw him with the murder weapon and covered in blood. Some also heard him confess in public, claiming he had killed his wife and sister-in-law for engaging in “immoral activities” and eliminated the children because he believed they were not his.

Despite the court’s scathing observation that the murders stemmed from “grave hatred,” it found that the crime was not committed under sudden provocation. In fact, Thippaiah planned the killings, sparing only one child—Rajeshwari—whom he believed to be his own. The bench noted, “He had a plan in mind which he executed, achieving his desired goal.”

The top court dismissed any doubts regarding Thippaiah’s guilt, stating that the chain of circumstantial evidence was unbroken and beyond reproach. “Not a shred of evidence either oral or documentary has been produced to posit the appellant-convict’s innocence or suggest the involvement of any third party,” the bench stated.

However, the focus shifted when it came to sentencing. The court reiterated that the death penalty must meet the strict threshold of the “rarest of rare” doctrine. Referring to the landmark judgment in Manoj vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), the bench underscored the need for sentencing courts to consider detailed reports on an accused’s social and psychological background before confirming capital punishment.

The apex court observed that while the Karnataka High Court had called for such reports in compliance with Manoj, it failed to give them “full and meaningful” consideration.

The mitigation report presented a tragic personal history. Thippaiah’s life was marked by emotional neglect, substance dependence, academic failure, and impulsive decisions that led to repeated losses. His first marriage ended in breakdown due to substance abuse issues. After his arrest, Thippaiah experienced severe mental health issues and even attempted suicide twice while in custody.

Given this background, the Supreme Court referred to its recent ruling in Ramesh A Naika vs Registrar General (2025), which highlighted the importance of considering factors like lack of prior criminal record, good prison conduct, and potential for reformation when deciding whether a death sentence should be commuted.

On the possibility of reform, the bench noted, “Given there is mixed opinion on whether he shall or shall not be able to reform, the court will err on the side of caution… the one that favours the accused is to be adopted.”

Ultimately, the court concluded that Thippaiah should not be sent to the gallows but must serve life imprisonment till his natural death, with no scope for remission. “He should spend his days in jail attempting to repent for the crimes committed by him,” the bench observed.

This ruling further cements the evolving jurisprudence around capital punishment in India, where courts are increasingly mindful of the convict’s life history and reformative potential, even in cases of heinous crimes. The judgment stands as a reminder that the justice system, while upholding accountability, must also leave room for humanity and introspection.

Case Title: Byluru Thippaiah @ Byaluru Thippaiah @ Nayakara Thippaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Judgment Date: July 16, 2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta