16 July 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has partially allowed the appeals of Byluru Thippaiah, commuting his death sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without remission. The case, Byluru Thippaiah v/s State of Karnataka, was decided on July 16, 2025, by the Honourable Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, the Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, and the Honourable Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Background of the Case:

Byluru Thippaiah was convicted of the murders of his wife, Pakkeeramma (D1), her sister Gangamma (D2), and his three children, Pavithra (D3), Nagraj (D4), and Basamma (D5). The assault occurred on February 25, 2017, with four of the victims dying at the scene and D5 dying on the way to the hospital. Thippaiah was held guilty of the charges in FIR Cr. No. 23 of 2017, which was registered at PS Kampli, Ballari District, Karnataka.

The motive for the killings stemmed from Thippaiah's suspicion that his wife was unfaithful and that his three children (D3-D5) were not his own. After the murders, he allegedly stepped out of his house and proclaimed his satisfaction at having ended the lives of his wife, sister-in-law, and the children he believed were a result of "immoral activities". This statement was witnessed by eight prosecution witnesses.

Judicial History:

The Trial Court, which had considered two judgments from the Supreme Court (Khushwinder Singh V. State of Punjab and Ishwari Lal Yadav v. State of Chattisgarh), found the case to be in the "rarest of the rare category" and imposed capital punishment. The court's judgment described Thippaiah's actions as a "serial killing" and noted that the crime scene resembled a "rustic butcher shop, where the animals were killed inhumanly". The Trial Court concluded that Thippaiah had a "beast mind" and had no guilt about his actions, believing he might "finish off another dozen or so" if released.

The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused. The High Court's findings, based on an independent re-examination of the evidence, established a motive, maliciousness in the manner of death, and pre-planning, as evidenced by the accused sending away his only daughter he considered to be his own, Rajeshwari.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts regarding Thippaiah's guilt, but differed on the aspect of sentencing. The court referenced the test of "rarest of rare cases" established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and the new position introduced in Swami Shradhanand v. State of Karnataka, which allows for sentences short of death while considering the heinousness of the crime.

The High Court had, in accordance with the principles set out in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, called for reports detailing the social and psychological background of the accused. These reports revealed a difficult life for Thippaiah, including a lack of parental love, struggles with education, and impulsive business decisions. It was also noted that he had considered suicide on two occasions: once after learning of his family's deaths and again after being sentenced to death. The mitigation report concluded that he had the ability to adapt and engage in constructive activities.

The Supreme Court also considered recent cases where death sentences were modified to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. It applied criteria such as a lack of criminal antecedents, satisfactory conduct in prison, and the possibility of reformation. While acknowledging a mixed opinion on his potential for reform, the court decided to "err on the side of caution".

Consequently, the court affirmed the conviction but released Byluru Thippaiah from death row. He will now serve an imprisonment sentence for the remainder of his natural life, without the possibility of remission. The court noted that this sentence allows him to spend the rest of his life in jail attempting to repent for his crimes.

Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860     

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 366., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973