Today, the Supreme Court commuted a man’s death sentence for the 2009 kidnapping and murder of a seven-year-old boy in Tamil Nadu. A three-judge panel consisting of the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, and Justices Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha upheld the conviction, but overturned the death penalty and substituted it with 20 years of imprisonment without reprieve.
Background of the Case
The perpetrator, Sundararajan, abducted the second-grade student from his school in the village of Karkudal in the district of Cuddalore. He demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 lakh from the boy’s parents. Sundararajan strangled the boy and threw his body into a water tank when he was not paid. Sundararajan was given the death penalty by a Cuddalore Mahila Court. 2010 saw the verdict upheld by the Madras High Court. The high court had determined that any leniency would be a misapplication of mercy and a mockery of the criminal justice system. After this, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.
The bench of Justices P Sathasivam and JS Khehar denied the convict’s request for clemency and determined that Sundararajan’s actions were the result of extreme mental perversion unworthy of human forgiveness. The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty in 2013, noting that the defendant had no regard for human life and that the manner of the murder of an innocent child and disposal of the body revealed a brutal mindset.
During the hearing today, the court issued an order in a petition for review that Sundarrajan filed against the 2013 decision of the highest court, which was initially denied.
The division bench relied on the ruling in Mohd. Arif and noted that the review must be conducted in open court. In light of the fact that there is no doubt as to Sundarrajan’s guilt, the court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to twenty years in prison.
Mohd Arif Judgement
This case involving the convicted attacker of the Red Fort resulted in reform of death penalty proceedings. In this case, it was mandated that review petitions for death sentences must be heard in open court by a bench of at least three judges. This action led to the commutation of multiple death sentences.
Rationale of SC behind commuting death penalty
The Supreme court in this case noted that no investigation into the mitigating circumstances of the death-row inmate was conducted prior to the imposition of the sentence.
In multiple rulings, this Court has emphasised that, prior to imposing the death penalty, the court must investigate mitigating circumstances and rule out the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation. In spite of this, in the present case, no such investigation was conducted, and the severity of the crime was the only factor considered when the death penalty was imposed.
While commuting the death sentence, the Supreme Court stated that the applicant is a death row inmate. The petition for a re-examination of his conviction is based on the Mohd Arif judgement, which held that review must be conducted in open court. There is no reason to doubt the petitioner’s guilt. Inappropriate is the use of powers under review to interfere with a conviction. Therefore, the Court ordered the death sentence to be commuted to 20 years in prison.
In addition, the Court ordered that contempt of court proceedings be initiated against a Cuddalore police officer for filing an incorrect affidavit before the Court. The Court commanded the Registry to initiate a suo moto case of contempt against the officer.
