Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police (2023)

Introduction 

This is a landmark judgment where the Court discussed the proper consideration of mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases under Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  

• The Judgment was delivered by a three-judge Bench consisting of the former Chief Justice (Dr.) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice Pamidighantam S. Narasimha. 

Facts 

• The petitioner, Sundar @ Sundarrajan, was involved in the kidnapping and murder of a seven-year-old child in Kammapuram, Tamil Nadu. 
• On 27 July 2009, the petitioner kidnapped the child and made two ransom calls to the victim's mother demanding Rs 5 lakhs. 
• On 30 July 2009, police raided the petitioner's house and arrested him along with a co-accused. 
• The petitioner confessed to strangling the child and disposing of the body in a tank. 
• Based on the confession, police recovered the victim's body from the tank. 
• The Trial Court at Cuddalore found the petitioner guilty under Sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom) and 302 (murder) of the IPC. 
• The petitioner was sentenced to death while the co-accused was acquitted of all charges. 
• The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld both the conviction and death sentence. 
• A Division Bench of the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the death penalty. 
• Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014), the petitioner sought review in open court, arguing judicial errors and failure to consider mitigating circumstances. 

Issue Involved 

• Whether the death penalty awarded to the petitioner was justified, and whether the courts had properly considered mitigating circumstances before awarding the death sentence? 

Court’s Observations 

• The Court upheld the conviction, finding no errors apparent on the face of the record. 
• The prosecution's case was based on strong witness testimonies and documentary evidence, and the petitioner failed to raise reasonable doubt. 
• However, the Court found critical procedural lapses in the sentencing process: 
  • The Trial Court had not granted the petitioner a meaningful hearing on sentencing before awarding the death penalty. 
  • Neither the Trial Court nor appellate courts made genuine efforts to consider mitigating circumstances suggesting possibility of reform or rehabilitation. 
  • The penalty was imposed solely based on the gruesome nature of the crime without proper inquiry into mitigating factors. 
• The Court emphasized that it is the duty of courts to inquire into mitigating circumstances and rule out possibility of reformation before awarding death penalty, even if the accused remains silent. 
• The Court noted that the Division Bench's reasoning about targeting "the only son" who would carry family lineage was a patriarchal value judgment that should be avoided. 
• The Court applied the "rarest of rare cases" doctrine from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and found the case did not meet this threshold. 
• Mitigating factors considered included: 
  • Petitioner was only 23 years old at the time of the crime. 
  • No previous criminal antecedents. 
  • Satisfactory conduct in prison since 2009 (except one escape attempt in 2013). 
  • Had earned a diploma in food catering while in jail. 
  • Was suffering from systemic hypertension. 
• The Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment for not less than twenty years without remission, noting that the usual 14-year effective sentence for life imprisonment was inadequate given the gravity of the crime. 

Conclusion 

This is a landmark judgment that reinforces the procedural safeguards required in death penalty cases under the Indian Penal Code. 

The Court established that proper consideration of mitigating circumstances is mandatory before awarding death penalty, and failure to do so constitutes a judicial error warranting intervention. The judgment emphasizes that death penalty should only be awarded in the "rarest of rare cases" after thorough examination of both aggravating and mitigating factors.