Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Three Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, rendered judgment on the statutory and criminal appeals against the confirmation of a death sentence imposed upon a man convicted of murdering his wife and four minor children and committing rape on his eldest daughter. The apex court, while upholding the conviction, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment until the end of the convict’s natural life.

The appellant, a man convicted under Sections 302, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, was originally sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, Palakkad, and the sentence was confirmed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The Supreme Court observed that despite the brutality and calculated nature of the crime, prolonged good conduct, absence of prior criminal antecedents, and psychological evaluations led to the conclusion that the death penalty was not warranted.

Also Read: “The Governor Shall Not Withhold Assent Therefrom”: Supreme Court Declares Post-Repassal Reservation of Bills Unconstitutional, Deems Assent Granted Under Article 142

The appellant, employed as an agricultural worker in the fields of  PW-1, resided with his family in a rented house. Over time, he developed a relationship with PW-24, which allegedly motivated the crime. His wife went missing on July 9, 2008. The appellant took his son and youngest daughter away on July 11, 2008, claiming he was reuniting with his family. Subsequent suspicious behaviour led neighbours to investigate the house, where they found the lifeless bodies of the appellant’s two daughters.

Further investigation led to the discovery of his wife’s the son’s, and the third daughter’s bodies in a septic tank and a nearby field. An FIR was registered on July 23, 2008. The appellant was arrested on July 27, 2008. The final report filed included charges under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), 297 (trespassing on burial sites), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence).

At trial, the prosecution presented 44 witnesses, 72 exhibits, and 36 material objects. The Trial Court framed six issues, including whether the appellant committed the murders, raped his daughter, and attempted to conceal evidence.

Key evidentiary points considered included:

• Motive: Relationship with PW-24 and suspicion about paternity.

• Last seen evidence: Testimonies from PWs 1, 2, 7, 9, 17, and 18.

• Conduct: False statements, disappearance post-crime, and calm demeanour.

• Scientific evidence: DNA match confirming rape and testimonies from Dr. P.C. Ignatius (PW-31).

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under IPC Sections 302, 376, and 201 but acquitted him under Section 297 due to insufficient evidence. He was sentenced to death for murder, 10 years rigorous imprisonment for rape, and 7 years for disappearance of evidence.

The High Court examined the evidence and confirmed the Trial Court’s findings, observing: "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." It concluded that "the alternative option of rehabilitation is unquestionably foreclosed" and upheld the death sentence.

The Supreme Court reconsidered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It observed that the convict had committed a brutal crime with premeditated intent, killed multiple family members including his children, and raped his daughter. However, in evaluating post-conviction conduct and mental health, it stated:

"He has exhibited certain behaviours that are means of coping with overwhelming distress originating in the past from issues such as neglect, parental mental illness, substance dependence, unstable home environment, physical and sexual abuse."

"He has used the money earned to donate to different causes, such as towards the bail amount of co-prisoners, totalling Rs.83,000/-."

"He is also stated to have hopes to spend time in social service in the future. His issues with anger seem to have abated."

Also Read: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Denial of Compassionate Appointment: Family Pension, Son’s Modest Job Deemed Sufficient to Disqualify Claim

The Court relied on Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353 and Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 575, stating the requirement of considering post-conviction transformation and psychological reports in capital sentencing.

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,

The Supreme Court concluded: "We find that the imposition of death penalty would be unjustified. He is, therefore, removed from death row... he shall spend the remainder of his days in jail, till his last breath."

The appeals were partly allowed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate; Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Advocate; Ms. Sakshi Jain, Advocate; Ms. Maulshree Pathak, Advocate; Ms. Ronika Tater, Advocate; Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Advocate; Mr. Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Advocate; Mr. Mukund P. Unny, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Sanjay Nair S., Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocate-on-Record; Mrs. Anu K Joy, Advocate; Mr. Alim Anvar, Advocate; Mr. Santhosh K, Advocate; Ms. Anna Oommen, Advocate; Ms. Sayed Nazarat Fatima, Advocate

Case Title: Reji Kumar alias Reji vs State of Kerala

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 538

Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1179-1180 of 2023

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta

[Read/Download order]