SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 2023
Case Title and Citation
Factual Background
The petitioner, Sundar @ Sundarrajan, is a convict on death row who sought a review of his conviction and sentence based on the Mohd. Arif decision, which mandated an open court hearing for death penalty review petitions. The petitioner was accused of kidnapping and murdering a 7-year-old child on July 27, 2009. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner picked up the victim on his motorbike while the child was returning from school. The victim’s mother received a ransom call demanding Rs. 5 lakhs. Following the petitioner’s arrest, he confessed to strangling the deceased, placing the body in a gunny bag, and throwing it into Meerankulam tank, where the body was recovered. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to death. This conviction and the death sentence were affirmed by the High Court (Madras) and the Supreme Court in subsequent appeals.
Issue(s)
- Whether there were errors apparent on the face of the record in the judgment confirming the petitioner’s conviction, specifically concerning the admissibility of Call Detail Records (CDRs) due to the lack of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA).
- Whether the death sentence imposed on the petitioner should be reconsidered or commuted on the ground that the Trial Court and Appellate Courts failed to conduct an appropriate and effective sentencing hearing considering relevant mitigating circumstances.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court saw no reason in the review jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of guilt for kidnapping and murdering the victim. The Court commuted the death sentence imposed upon the petitioner to life imprisonment for not less than twenty years without reprieve or remission. The Court also directed the Registry to register a suo motu proceeding for contempt of court against the Respondent (Inspector of Police) for withholding material information regarding the petitioner’s conduct in prison.
Reason for the Decision
The Court rejected the petitioner’s grounds for review of conviction, finding they did not constitute “errors apparent on the face of the record”. Although the petitioner objected to the admissibility of the CDRs without a Section 65B certificate, the Court, in view of this being a death sentence matter, proceeded by eschewing (disregarding) the electronic evidence. However, the conviction was sustained because the case was founded on consistent interlinked evidence that remained strong even without the CDRs, including eyewitness testimonies (PW2 and PW3) placing the petitioner with the victim, and the recovery of the victim’s body and school bag based on the petitioner’s confessional statement.
Regarding sentencing, the Court noted that neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Courts conducted an effective and separate hearing on sentencing or adequately considered mitigating circumstances as required by Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Bachan Singh guidelines. The Trial Court relied mainly on the gruesome nature of the crime. Since the law requires the imposition of the death penalty only in the “rarest of rare” cases where there is no possibility of reformation, and the state failed to prove this impossibility, the possibility of reformation could not be ruled out, especially given the petitioner’s satisfactory conduct in jail (except for one escape attempt), young age (23) at the time of the crime, lack of prior criminal antecedents, and attempts at education (diploma in food catering).
Considering the “gruesome nature of the crime” (murder of a 7-year-old child), the Court determined that ordinary life imprisonment (which is subject to remission, typically resulting in 14 years) would be “grossly disproportionate and inadequate”. Therefore, the Court exercised its power to prescribe a fixed term of imprisonment and commuted the sentence to life imprisonment for a minimum term of twenty years without remission.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the finding of guilt but found that the death sentence was wrongly imposed due to a failure to conduct a proper mitigation inquiry mandated by law. Consequently, the death penalty was commuted, replaced by a fixed term of life imprisonment of not less than twenty years without the possibility of reprieve or remission. Separate contempt proceedings were ordered against the Inspector of Police for suppressing facts regarding the petitioner’s jail conduct.
