NDLI: Sundar @ Sundarrajan Vs. State By Inspector of Police

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India : Arts. 137 – Review jurisdiction in matters pertaining to capital punishment
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	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 there against – 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 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 264
Petitioner	Sundar @ Sundarrajan
Respondent	State By Inspector Of Police
SCR	[2023] 5 S.C.R. 1016
Judgement Date	2023-03-21
Case Number	300-301

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sundar @ Sundarrajan Vs. State By Inspector of Police

Please Log-in to view this content

Hargun Sundar Das Godeja and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Subran and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Manoharan Vs. State By Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore

Rai Ramkrishna & Others Vs. The State of Bihar

G.s.ramaswamy & Ors. Vs. Inspector-general of Police, Mysore

Manikandan Vs. State By The Inspector of Police

Babasaheb Maruti Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra

A.p.s.r.t.c. and Ors. Vs. Abdul Kareem

Bishun Narain Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Sundar @ Sundarrajan Vs. State By Inspector of Police

Sundar @ Sundarrajan Vs. State By Inspector of Police

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Hargun Sundar Das Godeja and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Subran and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Manoharan Vs. State By Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore

Rai Ramkrishna & Others Vs. The State of Bihar

G.s.ramaswamy & Ors. Vs. Inspector-general of Police, Mysore

Manikandan Vs. State By The Inspector of Police

Babasaheb Maruti Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra

A.p.s.r.t.c. and Ors. Vs. Abdul Kareem

Bishun Narain Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Sundar @ Sundarrajan Vs. State By Inspector of Police