On July 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India upheld the death sentence of Byluru Thippaiah (Byaluru Thippaiah or Nayakara Thippaiah) on the brutal murder of his five family members. His death penalty was however commuted to jail term until the rest of his natural life without remission, with the Court reiterating on matters of mitigating facts and chance of reformation as it appeared during the recent precedents. This case, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2490-2491 of 2023 is an excellent example of how the judiciary is progressing towards capital punishment based on the horrifying nature of crimes committed and with a detailed reflection of the personal mentality of an offender and his or her chance to reform.
The dreadful Circumstances of the Case
The case was initiated due to a very shocking incident that happened on February 25, 2017. Byluru Thippaiah was charged of beating up his wife, Pakkeeramma (D1) her sister Gangamma (D2) and their three children, Pavithra (D3), Nagraj @ Rajappa (D4) and Basamma (D5), leading to the instantaneous mortality of D1 to D4 and D5 passing on the way to the hospital. The reason behind this gruesome act was due to the feeling of his wife being unfaithful and the children he carried with him are not his.
Before the murders, Thippaiah is alleged to have come out of his house and told everyone that he is glad to end the lives of his wife, sister-in-law (who he accused of immoral activities), and the children, whom he thought were a product of such activities. Several prosecution witnesses have testified to this cold declaration. Upon the examination of the bodies,D-5 who was still alive by then was taken to hospital, and had died of injuries after that. Later, Thippaiah was handed to the Kampili Police Station, where he confessed to the murders.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Trial court proceedings and high court proceedings
On December 3, 2019, in the case of the invasion of Rakesh Home, the invasion of Rakesh Home, the Trial Court, the III Additional District and Sessions Judges, Ballari, held Thippaiah guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the death penalty was awarded therein. Convicting the culprit of murder, the court termed such killings as barbaric and diabolical and indicated that the offender had in a barbaric manner, chop off his wife, his sister-in-law, and 03 children who were helpless. The Trial Court was unequivocal regarding the fact that the crime was premeditated, extremely brutal and that accused was not remorseful and therefore it belonged to the category of rarest of the rare.
Later, the case was taken to High Court to confirm death sentence and an appeal by Appellant-convict. The High Court, a few days after a re-hearing of the evidence, affirmed the conviction and sentence of death on May 30, 2023. The High Court has noted the overt motive which was created by many witnesses giving evidence regarding frequent quarrelling and the doubts in the mind of Thippaiah about the paternity of the children. It also recalled his pre planning which was the fact that he sent his daughter Rajeshwari away who he perceived to be his biological child. The inhumane way the murders were done was taken as an aggravating factor.
More importantly, the high court, going in tune of the Supreme Court pronouncements in
Manoj v. State of M.P., requested reports indicating social and psychological backgrounds of Thippaiah, his behaviour in jail and his ability to reform. These reports brought elements of his childhood such as death of his parents at a tender age, illiteracy, and problematic relationships. Some people thought he was not to be reformed; however, the probation officer, as well as the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, noticed that, although he had no personality disorders, he was mildly depressed and had an IQ of 93. The daughter, Rajeshwari, also talked about the “mild and affectionate aspects of his father.”
Deliberation and Judgment of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, though confirming the simultaneous convictions of the subordinate courts because of the clear-cut evidences of guilt, closely looked into the provision of sentencing. The Court recognised the brutality in the crimes and also premeditation. It however concluded that the High Court failed to take into account the forestalling information portrayed in the different reports adequately.
There were no criminal antecedents mentioned in the Probation Report and the opinion thereon was mixed whether he was suited to be reformed. According to the Prisons and Correctional Services, in terms of the “Conduct and Behavioural Report”, it was noted that he possessed good moral character and good conduct with co-prisoners and officials and had even undergone a Basic Literacy Program. According to the mitigation report, the individual had a troublesome history, such as absence of love by parents and bad judgment skills. Importantly it also pointed at his two attempts of committing suicide that were caused by influence of crimes and his punishment. The report was also indicative of his potential to change, that he has been taking constructive activities and keeps on being concerned about the future of his daughter.
The Supreme Court took into consideration its precedents especially
Bachan Singh v. Manoj and State of Punjab v. State of M.P., the principle of death penalty in the state during the rarest of rare cases was laid down and strict knowledge in detail about the background details of the accused must be obtained to sentence an individual. The Court has also mentioned
Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, which spoke about factors to be taken into consideration to reduce death sentences, such as the absence of any criminal history, good behavior in prison, and the opportunity to correct.
Finally, the Supreme Court believes that just because the actions of the appellant were reprehensible, there was definitely the possibility that the death penalty may not apply and this is because of the sum-total of circumstances that led the appellant-convict to such a place of committing this heinous act of a most reprehensible nature. Using the principle that when there is divided opinion on reformation, the court must go by the safer side therefore commute the death sentence, the bench commuted the death sentence. Byluru Thippaiah is now condemned to spend all the remaining part of his life in prison and that too without the remission that shows the seriousness of his offences as well as taking into consideration the circumstances which does not allow giving a more extreme punishment. This decision highlights the delicate nature of the capital punishment as the Supreme Court tied both the retributive and the reformative sides of justice.
Author
About the Author
