Supreme Court commutes loss of life penalty of Tamil Nadu man convicted for murdering little one

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday commuted the loss of life sentence of a person, who had kidnapped and killed a seven-year-old boy in Tamil Nadu in 2009, to 20-year imprisonment, saying there was “possibility of reformation” despite the fact that he has dedicated a ghastly crime.

Observing that there was no cause to doubt the guilt of the person, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud held that the person would bear life imprisonment for not lower than 20 years with out reprieve or remission.

The commutation of the loss of life sentence got here after paying attention to the arguments that listening to on the sentence has not been carried out individually within the trial courtroom and mitigating circumstances haven’t been thought of within the appellate courts earlier than awarding the capital punishment.

The prime courtroom’s judgement got here on a evaluation plea filed by Sundar alias Sundarrajan who picked up the sufferer whereas he was coming back from faculty within the faculty van on July 27, 2009.

On the identical evening, the sufferer’s mom acquired a name on her cell phone from Sundar, demanding a ransom of Rs 5 lakh for his launch.

On July 30, 2009, the police raided Sundar’s home and arrested him together with a co-accused who was later acquitted.

He confessed to strangling the boy, placing his physique in a gunny bag and throwing it within the Meerankulam tank.

The Madras High Court had on September 30, 2010, confirmed the conviction and the award of the loss of life sentence, which was upheld by the highest courtroom on February 5, 2013.

Sundar had filed a plea earlier than the highest courtroom in 2013 looking for a evaluation of his conviction for the offence of homicide and the award of loss of life sentence on the premise of the choice of a Constitution Bench in Mohd.Arif vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India.

The Constitution Bench had held that evaluation petitions arising from conviction and the imposition of the sentence of loss of life have to be heard in open courtroom and can’t be disposed of by circulation.

In its 51-page verdict, the apex courtroom took be aware of the person’s submission that he couldn’t talk mitigating circumstances bearing on his sentencing choice to the lawyer and his kinfolk, who being poor and uneducated, couldn’t correctly contest the case for him.

The courtroom mentioned on the premise of those particulars, it can’t be mentioned that there is no such thing as a chance of reformation despite the fact that the petitioner has dedicated 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 mentioned.

The prime courtroom mentioned despite the fact that the crime dedicated by the person is certainly grave and unpardonable, it’s not acceptable to affirm the loss of life sentence that was awarded to him.

“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 crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal. Considering the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the petitioner must undergo life imprisonment for not less than 20 years without remission of sentence,” the bench, additionally comprising Justices Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha, mentioned.

It additionally issued a discover to the inspector of police, Kammapuram police station in Cuddalore district as to why motion shouldn’t be taken in pursuance to the affidavit filed in courtroom concealing the conduct of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Registry is directed to register the matter as a suo motu continuing for contempt of courtroom, the bench mentioned.

The prime courtroom mentioned that it’s the obligation of the courtroom to inquire into mitigating circumstances in addition to to foreclose the potential of reformation and rehabilitation earlier than imposing the loss of life penalty.

“The state must equally place all material and circumstances on the record bearing on the probability of reform. Many such materials and aspects are within the knowledge of the state which has had custody of the accused both before and after the conviction. Moreover, the court cannot be an indifferent bystander in the process. The process and powers of the court may be utilised to ensure that such material is made available to it to form a just sentencing decision bearing on the probability of reform,” the bench mentioned.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday commuted the loss of life sentence of a person, who had kidnapped and killed a seven-year-old boy in Tamil Nadu in 2009, to 20-year imprisonment, saying there was “possibility of reformation” despite the fact that he has dedicated a ghastly crime.

Observing that there was no cause to doubt the guilt of the person, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud held that the person would bear life imprisonment for not lower than 20 years with out reprieve or remission.

The commutation of the loss of life sentence got here after paying attention to the arguments that listening to on the sentence has not been carried out individually within the trial courtroom and mitigating circumstances haven’t been thought of within the appellate courts earlier than awarding the capital punishment.googletag.cmd.push(perform() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

The prime courtroom’s judgement got here on a evaluation plea filed by Sundar alias Sundarrajan who picked up the sufferer whereas he was coming back from faculty within the faculty van on July 27, 2009.

On the identical evening, the sufferer’s mom acquired a name on her cell phone from Sundar, demanding a ransom of Rs 5 lakh for his launch.

On July 30, 2009, the police raided Sundar’s home and arrested him together with a co-accused who was later acquitted.

He confessed to strangling the boy, placing his physique in a gunny bag and throwing it within the Meerankulam tank.

The Madras High Court had on September 30, 2010, confirmed the conviction and the award of the loss of life sentence, which was upheld by the highest courtroom on February 5, 2013.

Sundar had filed a plea earlier than the highest courtroom in 2013 looking for a evaluation of his conviction for the offence of homicide and the award of loss of life sentence on the premise of the choice of a Constitution Bench in Mohd.Arif vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India.

The Constitution Bench had held that evaluation petitions arising from conviction and the imposition of the sentence of loss of life have to be heard in open courtroom and can’t be disposed of by circulation.

In its 51-page verdict, the apex courtroom took be aware of the person’s submission that he couldn’t talk mitigating circumstances bearing on his sentencing choice to the lawyer and his kinfolk, who being poor and uneducated, couldn’t correctly contest the case for him.

The courtroom mentioned on the premise of those particulars, it can’t be mentioned that there is no such thing as a chance of reformation despite the fact that the petitioner has dedicated 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 mentioned.

The prime courtroom mentioned despite the fact that the crime dedicated by the person is certainly grave and unpardonable, it’s not acceptable to affirm the loss of life sentence that was awarded to him.

“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 crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal. Considering the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the petitioner must undergo life imprisonment for not less than 20 years without remission of sentence,” the bench, additionally comprising Justices Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha, mentioned.

It additionally issued a discover to the inspector of police, Kammapuram police station in Cuddalore district as to why motion shouldn’t be taken in pursuance to the affidavit filed in courtroom concealing the conduct of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Registry is directed to register the matter as a suo motu continuing for contempt of courtroom, the bench mentioned.

The prime courtroom mentioned that it’s the obligation of the courtroom to inquire into mitigating circumstances in addition to to foreclose the potential of reformation and rehabilitation earlier than imposing the loss of life penalty.

“The state must equally place all material and circumstances on the record bearing on the probability of reform. Many such materials and aspects are within the knowledge of the state which has had custody of the accused both before and after the conviction. Moreover, the court cannot be an indifferent bystander in the process. The process and powers of the court may be utilised to ensure that such material is made available to it to form a just sentencing decision bearing on the probability of reform,” the bench mentioned.