The Apex Court in a recent instance dealt with a chilling case of familial violence where a man—socially respected and professionally successful—became the architect of multiple murders, including those of his own children. The crime unraveled a story not of momentary rage but of calculated control driven by a tortious sense of authority,
The accused is a bank manager. He was enraged by his sister-in-law’s decision to marry a colleague which he allegedly disapproved of. His interference was initially limited to persuasion. But soon after, the issue allegedly escalated into violent action when his wife and other family members refused to side with him.
The following series of events as a consequence of the events above mentioned was a gruesome tale of violence: first, the murder of his sister-in-law and mother-in-law in Tumkur with their bodies being disposed of in a sump tank; and then, the drowning of his two children in a water tank in Mangalore.
Digital evidence including an SMS became a key link in the prosecution’s case. The SMS which he sent to his wife stated that he had “already sent his mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and children to heaven,”.
The trial court relied substantially on circumstantial evidence and concluded that the chain of events conclusively pointed to the accused’s guilt. It observed:
“The totality of the evidence did not point out that for the reason of Ms. Savitha falling in love with PW-19, which was not acceptable to the accused, he decided to intervene in an indirect manner… leading to the deaths of the children.”
The defense struggled to break the prosecution’s narrative. The trial court applied the last seen theory and noted that the accused was the last person seen with the children following which the bodies of the children were found shortly afterward.
With no plausible explanation from the defense, the court found no reason to doubt the prosecution’s case.
The High Court upheld the findings and dismissed the argument that digital evidence was inadmissible due to the absence of a Section 65B certificate under the Evidence Act. The Court held that the messages were not presented as substantive evidence but as corroborative material.
The question being set aside, the Apex Court scrutinized on rewarding a befitting sentence to the accused. The Supreme Court acknowledged the brutality of the crime but also recognized that mitigating factors—such as the accused’s lack of prior criminal antecedents—were not fully considered by the trial court.
It relied on precedents that emphasize the importance of evaluating both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital punishment cases. As noted:
“The absence of criminal intent as a mitigating circumstance was negated by the Court observing that during Trial, he had tried to meddle with the witnesses and influence them – this shows the presence of criminal intent… We find this argument difficult to accept.”
Concludingly, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission and necessitated that the accused be imprisoned until his natural death. The Court made it clear that the gravity of the crime was not being downplayed, stating:
“We should not even for a moment be taken to understand that the barbarity of the crime, the helplessness of the two children who met the most unfortunate of ends, and that too at the hands of the very person who bore half the responsibility of bringing them into the world, has escaped us.”
The case is a stark reminder of how rigid notions of control and patriarchal authority can escalate into irreversible violence. The verdict does not erase the horrors inflicted, but it does highlight the principle that sentencing must be measured and just considered even in the gravest of cases.
CASE DETAILS: Ramesh A Naika vs Registrar General of High Court, Karnataka, 2025
About Author
Tanishq, a law student at the Department of Legal Studies and Research, Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal, is a budding legal writer with a sharp eye for evolving legal landscapes. Passionate about Intellectual Property Rights, Constitutional Law, and Women and Child Safety Laws, Tanishq actively explores contemporary legal nuances through writing and research.
