Supreme Court commutes death penalty of Tamil Nadu man for kidnap, murder of 7-year-old boy

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Chandrachud, said the crime was "gruesome". However, the CJI, reading out the judgment, said the courts had not considered the mitigating circumstances nor had held a separate sentence hearing before condemning the man to death.

March 21, 2023 11:39 am | Updated 12:36 pm IST - NEW DELHI

A view of the Supreme Court of India. File

A view of the Supreme Court of India. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on March 21 commuted the death penalty of a Tamil Nadu man for the kidnap and murder of a seven-year-old boy, the sole "male child" of his parents, who were unable to pay ₹5 lakh ransom for the child's release.

The apex court had 10 years ago, in February 2013, condemned Sundar alias Sundarrajan to the gallows. Five years later, in November 2018, the court, however, agreed to review its verdict of death penalty.

On March 21, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud, deciding the review petition, said there was "no reason to doubt his guilt in the crimes of kidnap and murder". The Chief Justice said the crime, the murder of a child, was "gruesome".

However, the CJI, reading out the judgment, said the courts had not considered the mitigating circumstances nor had held a separate sentence hearing before condemning the man to death.

Chief Justice Chandrachud said life sentence meant 14 years without parole or chances of remission. But this was not proportionate. The court ordered Sundarrajan, represented by advocate Renjith Marar, to serve 20 years of his sentence without any reprieve.

The February 2013 judgment had reasoned that the boy's death caused “unfathomable grief” to the parents. The boy would have carried further the family lineage and expectedly saw his parents through their old age, the Supreme Court had justified the death penalty.

The crime dates back to 2009 when the victim was accosted by the convict while on his way to school. The prosecution version is that the convict informed the boy that his mother and grandmother were not well and he should accompany him to the hospital. Witnesses said the boy was last seen alive getting on the motorbike of the convict.

On the basis of a complaint filed by the boy’s mother, an FIR was registered by the police. The same day, the mother received a call for ransom of ₹5 lakh. The mother rushed to the police, who formed a team, went to the house of the convict and apprehended him with another person.

The convict made confessional statements, leading to the recovery of three mobile phone sets, two of which had SIM cards. He acknowledged that the boy was strangulated when ransom was not paid for his release. The body was put in a gunny bag and thrown into a water tank.

In 2013, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and J.S. Khehar confirmed the death penalty, highlighting that the convict had no value for human life, the manner of murder of an innocent child and disposal of the body showed a brutal mindset.

The 2013 judgment authored by Justice Khehar had pointed out how the “parents of the deceased had four children – three daughters and one son. Kidnapping the only male child was to induce maximum fear in the mind of his parents”.

“Purposefully killing the sole male child, has grave repercussions for the parents of the deceased. Agony for parents for the loss of their only male child, who would have carried further the family lineage, and is expected to see them through their old age, is unfathomable," Justice Khehar had noted while categorising the crime as ‘rarest of rare’ deserving the death penalty.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.