SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 21-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
   [2023] 5 S.C.R. 1016
1016
SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN
v.
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 159-160 of 2013)
In
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011)
MARCH 21, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
HIMA KOHLI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,
JJ.]
Constitution of India : Arts. 137 – Review jurisdiction in
matters pertaining to capital punishment – Scope of – Petitioner
accused of kidnapping and murdering a 7-year old child –
Conviction u/ss. 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and imposition of death
sentence by the courts below – Upheld by this Court – Review
thereagainst – Dismissed through circulation – However, in view of
the judgment in Mohd. Arif’s case, order dismissing the review petition
through circulation recalled and the petition heard in open Court –
Held: None of the grounds raised amount to errors apparent on the
face of the record – All the grounds fail to raise any reasonable
doubt in the prosecution case – Thus, no reason to interfere with
the concurrent findings of the trial court, the High Court and this
Court vis-a-vis the guilt of the petitioner for kidnapping and
murdering the victim – Even though the crime committed by the
petitioner is unquestionably grave and unpardonable, it is not
appropriate to affirm the death sentence awarded to him – ‘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 – No mitigating
circumstances were placed before any of the appellate courts – It
cannot be said that there is no possibility of reformation even though
the petitioner has committed a ghastly crime – Also it was submitted
that the hearing was not conducted separately in the trial court –
Thus, in view of the gruesome nature of the crime of murder of 7
year old child, the death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1017
for not less than twenty years without reprieve or remission –
Supreme Court Rules 2013 – Ord. XLVII r. 1.
Sentence/sentencing:
Capital punishment – Mitigating circumstances –
Consideration of, while deciding upon the sentence – Held: Duty
of the court is to enquire into mitigating circumstances as well as to
foreclose the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation before
imposing the death penalty – 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 by-
stander in the process – 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.
Capital punishment – Aggravating circumstances –
Consideration of, while deciding upon the sentence – Held: Sex of
the child cannot be in itself considered as an aggravating
circumstance – Murder of a young child is a grievous crime and the
young age of the victim as well as the trauma caused to the entire
family is in itself, an aggravating circumstance – It does not and
should not matter for a constitutional court whether the young child
was a male child or a female child – Courts should not indulge in
furthering the notion that only a male child furthers family lineage
or is able to assist the parents in old age – Such remarks involuntarily
further patriarchal value judgments that courts should avoid.
Evidence Act, 1972 : s. 65 B – Electronic evidence in the
form of Call detail records-CDRs – Production of a certificate u/
s.65 B, if mandatory for admitting any electronic evidence – Held:
s. 65B certificate is mandatory – On facts, the review petition to be
considered eschewing the electronic evidence in the form of CDRs
as they are without the appropriate certificate u/s. 65B.
Contempt of Court : Non-disclosure of material facts –
Petitioner-convict tried to escape from prison – Inspector of Police
in the affidavit filed, materially withheld information regarding
conduct of the petitioner in the prison from the Court – Thus,
initiation of Suo Motu contempt proceedings against the convict.
SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF
POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Disposing of the review petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The evidence in th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.