Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence To Life In Kerala Family Massacre, Upholds Convictions

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeals arising from the killings of a wife and four children allegedly perpetrated by the husband and father. The matter concerned a statutory Death Reference and the appellant’s criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Court, Palakkad, and confirmed by the High Court of Kerala; the accused stood convicted under Sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC (he was acquitted of Section 297 by the trial court).

The Court affirmed the findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and the High Court, but altered the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had proved the primary charges, including sexual assault on the eldest daughter, and that the DNA and medical evidence supported the conviction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Keeping in view the discussion made in Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc. and considering the facts that the convict-appellant had no prior antecedents; good conduct for the past 16-17 years of incarceration; difficulties in mental health and consistent efforts at being a model prisoner, we find that the imposition of death penalty would be unjustified. He is, therefore, removed from death row. However, considering the severity of the crime, the number of persons killed, that out of five four were his own children, we are of the view that he does not deserve to be set free and direct that he shall spend the remainder of his days in jail, till his last breath, hoping to do acts of penance to atone for the crimes he has committed and particularly for the fact that he extinguished four bright flames.” The Court therefore commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life while leaving the convictions intact.

Background The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed his wife Lissy and four children over a period in July 2008. The FIR was registered on 23 July 2008, following discovery of two children dead in the house and later recovery of the bodies of the wife, son and youngest daughter. The trial court tried the case on charges under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), 297 (disrespect to a dead body) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence). The prosecution led 44 witnesses, 72 exhibits and 36 material objects. The trial court convicted the appellant of multiple counts of murder, one count of rape and of causing disappearance of evidence, sentenced him to death under Section 302 and imposed concurrent sentences for the other offences; it acquitted him on the Section 297 count.

The High Court reviewed the evidence and confirmed conviction and death sentence, finding motive, "last seen" circumstances, suspicious conduct, recoveries and medical/scientific proof together made the case complete. The High Court observed that "the appellant planned the murder of his wife and four children and executed the same in succession, during a period of two weeks, which would indicate that it was a pre-calculated cold blooded murder," and held the case fell within the "rarest of rare" doctrine, thereby upholding capital punishment.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, counsel for the State and the appellant advanced arguments on the sufficiency of proof and on sentencing. The Supreme Court re-examined the evidence under the conventional heads of motive, last-seen testimony, conduct of the accused, recoveries and medical/scientific material. It noted forensic evidence, including a DNA report that matched semen from the accused to biological material recovered from the deceased elder daughter, and the medical opinion of throttling as cause of death for that child. The Court also considered mitigating material — the probation officer’s report, psychological assessment and records of prison conduct — and applied this to precedents including Ramesh A. Naika and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh. Balancing aggravating factors (brutality, premeditation, sexual assault, multiple family victims) against mitigation (no prior criminal antecedents, prolonged good conduct in custody, mental health issues and rehabilitative signs), the Court concluded that death was unjustified and commuted the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. The appeals were partly allowed; the Death Reference was answered accordingly.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos.1179-1180 of 2023 (2025 INSC 538) Case Title: Reji Kumar alias Reji v. State of Kerala Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sonia Mathur, Senior Counsel (appearing) For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Senior Counsel (appearing)