NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence awarded to a man for kidnapping and murdering a seven-year-old in Tamil Nadu to life imprisonment for not less than 20 years.
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha also issued notice to the Inspector of Police, Kammapuram Police Station, Cuddalore District, State of Tamil Nadu to explain why action should not be taken for the filing of an incorrect affidavit dated 26 September 2021.
The authorities in the affidavit had failed to include the information about his attempt to escape from prison on November 6, 2013. The court also initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the Inspector of Police for withholding information.
The bench while upholding his conviction said, “We see no reason in the review jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, High Court and this Court vis-a-vis the guilt of the petitioner for kidnapping and murdering the victim.”
The court added, “As we have discussed, the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires that the death sentence not be imposed only by taking into account the grave nature of the crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal. ”
The top court's judgement came on a review plea filed by Sundar alias Sundarrajan who picked up the victim while he was returning from school in the school van on July 27, 2009. On the same night, the victim's mother received a call on her mobile phone from Sundar, demanding a ransom of Rs 5 lakh for his release.
On July 30, 2009, the police raided Sundar's house and arrested him along with a co-accused who was later acquitted. He confessed to strangling the boy, putting his body in a gunny bag and throwing it in the Meerankulam tank. The Madras High Court had on September 30, 2010, confirmed the conviction and the award of the death sentence, which was upheld by the top court on February 5, 2013.
Sundar had filed a plea before the top court in 2013 seeking a review of his conviction for the offence of murder and the award of death sentence on the basis of the decision of a Constitution Bench in Mohd. Arif vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India.
The Constitution Bench had held that review petitions arising from conviction and the imposition of the sentence of death must be heard in open court and cannot be disposed of by circulation.
In its 51-page verdict, the apex court took note of the man's submission that he could not communicate mitigating circumstances bearing on his sentencing decision to the lawyer and his relatives, who being poor and uneducated, could not properly contest the case for him.
The court said on the basis of these details, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of reformation even though the petitioner has committed a ghastly crime.
"We must consider several mitigating factors: the petitioner has no prior antecedents, was 23 years old when he committed the crime and has been in prison since 2009 where his conduct has been satisfactory, except for the attempt to escape prison in 2013. The petitioner is suffering from a case of systemic hypertension and has attempted to acquire some basic education in the form of a diploma in food catering. The acquisition of a vocation in jail has an important bearing on his ability to lead a gainful life," the bench said.
The top court said even though the crime committed by the man is unquestionably grave and unpardonable, it is not appropriate to affirm the death sentence that was awarded to him and added that it is the duty of the court to inquire into mitigating circumstances as well as to foreclose the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation before imposing the death penalty.
(With inputs from PTI)