The Supreme Court commuted Ramesh A Naika’s death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing flawed sentencing that overlooked mitigating factors despite the heinous nature of his crimes against his children.
The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence of a former bank manager, convicted for the brutal murder of his two minor children, ruling that the sentencing process was flawed.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta observed that while the crime was heinous and shocking, the lower courts had failed to consider mitigating factors, leading to an unbalanced sentencing. The bench reduced the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission, ensuring that the convict remains in prison for the rest of his natural life.
The convict, Ramesh A Naika, was a former manager at Punjab National Bank’s Solapur Branch. He was convicted for murdering his children—aged 10 years and 3.5 years—after an alleged dispute with his wife’s family over his sister-in-law’s relationship choices.
Naika was accused of first murdering his sister-in-law and mother-in-law in Tumkur village in June 2010, before traveling to Mangalore and drowning his two children in a farm tank. He later messaged his wife, urging her to take her own life.
The trial court sentenced him to death in 2013, classifying the case as “rarest of rare”, a decision upheld by the Karnataka High Court in 2017. However, the Supreme Court found the sentencing incomplete, as mitigating factors were overlooked.
“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 stated.
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of a balanced sentencing approach, especially in death penalty cases. The bench found that while the aggravating factors were acknowledged—such as the fact that the victims were his own children—the mitigating factors were ignored.
Key factors not considered by the lower courts included:
- Lack of prior criminal record
- Possibility of reformation
- Circumstantial nature of the evidence
The Court criticized the convict’s mindset, highlighting his authoritarian control over family members.
“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 judgment noted.
Reaffirming its stance on the death penalty, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment should only be imposed when no other viable sentencing option remains.
“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 stated.
Given the failure of the trial and high courts to conduct a proper sentencing analysis, the Supreme Court ruled that Naika should serve life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
“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 judgment concluded.
Case Title – Ramesh A Naika vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
Read the Judgement here:
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE