Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State (21 March 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2023

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Hima Kohli, and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.

Can a death sentence be upheld if the trial court did not conduct a separate hearing on sentencing and failed to consider mitigating circumstances? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police. This judgment highlights the importance of a fair sentencing process, especially in cases involving capital punishment. The court reviewed the case, focusing on whether there were errors in the original judgment and whether the convict’s circumstances were adequately considered before imposing the death penalty.

Case Background

The case involves the kidnapping and murder of a 7-year-old child. On 27 July 2009, the petitioner allegedly picked up the victim while he was returning from school. Witnesses saw the petitioner taking the child on his motorbike. The victim’s mother, upon discovering her son’s absence, filed a police complaint. Later that night, she received a ransom call demanding Rs. 5 lakhs. Another ransom call was made the following day from a telephone booth. The police arrested the petitioner on 30 July 2009, along with a co-accused who was later acquitted. The petitioner confessed to strangling the child, placing the body in a gunny bag, and throwing it into a tank. The child’s body was recovered from the tank based on this confession.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge on 30 July 2010. The Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to death for the first two offenses and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the third. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 30 September 2010, confirming both the conviction and the death sentence. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal on 5 February 2013, upholding the High Court’s judgment. A review petition was initially dismissed by circulation on 20 March 2013, but was later reopened in light of the decision in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v Registrar, Supreme Court of India, which mandated open court hearings for review petitions in death penalty cases.

Legal Framework

Article 137 of the Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court the power to review its judgments, subject to laws made by Parliament and rules under Article 145. The Supreme Court Rules 2013, framed under Article 145, specify that a review in criminal proceedings can only be on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) deals with the admissibility of electronic records. It states that any information contained in an electronic record, printed on paper or stored in optical or magnetic media, is considered a document if specific conditions are met. These conditions include the regular use of the computer to store or process information, the regular feeding of information into the computer, proper functioning of the computer, and the information being derived from data fed into the computer. Additionally, a certificate signed by a responsible official is required to verify these conditions.

Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) outlines the procedure for judgment of acquittal or conviction. Sub-section (2) states that if the accused is convicted, the Judge shall hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that there were several errors apparent on the face of the record, including:

• Lack of proof that the phone number used for ransom calls belonged to the petitioner.
• Call detail records showed the number was registered to someone else.
• Discrepancies in the IMEI number of the seized phone and the call detail records.
• No evidence that the number to which the ransom call was made belonged to the victim’s mother.
• The victim’s mother did not state that she received calls on 28 July 2009.
• The certificate under Section 65B of the IEA for the call detail records was not furnished.

The State of Tamil Nadu countered that these grounds did not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record and that the prosecution’s case was based on consistent, interlinked evidence beyond just the ransom calls. They argued that the issues raised by the petitioner had already been addressed by the lower courts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether there are errors apparent on the face of the record that warrant a review of the judgment dismissing the appeal.
2. Whether the death sentence was passed without a proper mitigation exercise.
3. Whether the sentence of death can be imposed in cases based on circumstantial evidence where a ‘lingering doubt’ persists.
4. Whether the trial court and appellate courts appropriately considered relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the authorities cited.

The Supreme Court viewed the authorities as follows:

• Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v Registrar, Supreme Court of India was used to justify the open court hearing of the review petition.
• Bachan Singh v State of Punjab was cited to emphasize the importance of a separate sentencing hearing and the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
• Mofil Khan v State of Jharkhand was used to highlight the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer were used to emphasize the mandatory requirement of a Section 65B certificate for electronic evidence.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu, Tomaso Bruno v State of Uttar Pradesh, and Shafi Mohammed v State of Himachal Pradesh were overruled or held per incuriam to reinforce the mandatory nature of Section 65B certificate.
• Sonu alias Amar v State of Haryana was relied upon to discuss the retrospective application of Anvar P.V. and the issue of belated objections to electronic evidence.
• Shatrughna Baban Meshram v State of Maharashtra was cited to reject the ‘lingering doubt’ theory.
• Santa Singh v State of Punjab, Muniappan v State of Tamil Nadu, and Allauddin Mian v State of Bihar were used to emphasize the need for a separate sentencing hearing.
• Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v State of Maharashtra, and Anil v State of Maharashtra were used to highlight the importance of considering the possibility of reform and rehabilitation.
• Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar was used to emphasize the court’s duty to elicit information on the possibility of reformation.
• Swamy Shraddananda (2) @ Murali Manohar Mishra v State of Karnataka was used to justify prescribing a specific length of imprisonment when commuting a death sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of a proper mitigation exercise during the sentencing phase and the need to consider the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict. The court emphasized that the death penalty should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases, where there is no possibility of reformation. The gruesome nature of the crime was acknowledged, but the court held that this alone was not sufficient to justify the death penalty. The court also took note of the petitioner’s conduct in jail, his educational pursuits, and his medical condition, indicating a potential for reform.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and precedents, with a focus on ensuring a fair sentencing process.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as upholding the death penalty based on the heinous nature of the crime. However, the court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the death penalty should only be imposed when there is no possibility of reformation. The final decision was reached by balancing the severity of the crime with the need for a fair and just sentencing process.

The court’s decision was that while the crime was heinous, the death penalty was not justified due to the lack of a proper mitigation exercise and the possibility of reformation.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The trial court did not conduct a separate sentencing hearing.
• The appellate courts did not consider any mitigating circumstances.
• The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires consideration of the possibility of reformation.
• The petitioner’s conduct in jail, his educational pursuits, and his medical condition indicate a potential for reform.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“…death sentence cases are a distinct category of cases altogether. Quite apart from Article 134 of the Constitution granting an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court in all death sentence cases, and apart from death sentence being granted only in the rarest of rare cases, two factors have impressed us. The first is the irreversibility of a death penalty. And the second is the fact that different judicially trained minds can arrive at conclusions which, on the same facts, can be diametrically opposed to each other.”

“…a review is ordinarily to be heard only by the same bench which originally heard the criminal appeal. This is obviously for the reason that in order that a review succeeds, errors apparent on the record have to be found. It is axiomatic that the same learned Judges alleged to have committed the error be called upon now to rectify such error.”

“…the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is an important factor which has to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death. There is a bounden duty cast on the Courts to elicit information of all the relevant factors and consider those regarding the possibility of reformation, even if the accused remains silent.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Sentencing hearings must be conducted separately, with a genuine effort to consider all relevant factors, including mitigating circumstances.
• The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires a thorough analysis of the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.
• Courts must not rely solely on the gruesome nature of the crime to justify the death penalty.
• The State must provide all relevant information regarding the accused, including their conduct in jail, medical condition, and educational pursuits.
• Even if the accused remains silent, the court is duty-bound to elicit relevant factors for sentencing.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the death sentence imposed on the petitioner be commuted to life imprisonment for not less than twenty years without remission. Additionally, a notice was issued to the Inspector of Police, Kammapuram Police Station, Cuddalore District, State of Tamil Nadu, to explain why action should not be taken for concealing material information from the court. The Registry was directed to register a suo motu proceeding for contempt of court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

[Not Applicable – No specific amendments were discussed in the judgment.]

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the death penalty should not be imposed without a proper mitigation exercise and consideration of the possibility of reformation, even in cases of heinous crimes. This judgment reinforces the principles established in Bachan Singh and clarifies the importance of a comprehensive sentencing process. The judgment also reaffirms the mandatory nature of Section 65B of the IEA for electronic evidence, following the principles laid down in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Anvar P.V. This judgment also changes the previous positions of law where the death penalty was being awarded by only taking into account the gruesome nature of the crime.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of the petitioner to life imprisonment for not less than twenty years without remission, emphasizing the importance of a fair sentencing process and the consideration of mitigating circumstances. The court found that the trial and appellate courts had failed to properly consider these aspects, and that the death penalty should only be imposed when there is no possibility of reformation. This judgment reinforces the principles of justice and fairness in capital cases.