Only gruesome crime not enough to impose death penalty: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence awarded to a man for kidnap and murder of a seven-year-old boy in Tamil Nadu in 2009 to life term with 20-year jail without remission, saying only gruesome nature of crime was not sufficient to impose the capital punishment.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha said as per the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, the death sentence cannot be imposed only by taking into account the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal.

“Even though the crime is unquestionably grave, ghastly and unpardonable, it is not appropriate to affirm the death sentence that was awarded to him,” the bench said, adding it cannot be said that there is no possibility of reformation.

Read | Judicial remarks in rape cases that stoked debates in India

The bench also said since a sentence of life imprisonment is subject to remission, this would not be adequate in view of the gruesome crime committed by the petitioner.

The SC declared that the man must undergo life imprisonment for not less than 20 years without remission of sentence. It passed the judgement on a review petition filed by the convict Sundar alias Sundarrajan.

The bench also pointed out there were several mitigating factors, including that he had no prior antecedents, he was 23 years old at the time of the crime and he has been in prison since 2009 where his conduct has been satisfactory, except for the attempt to escape prison in 2013.

It also noted he has been 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 bench also said, “The duty of the court to enquire into mitigating circumstances as well as to foreclose the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation before imposing the death penalty has been highlighted in multiple judgments of this court. Despite this, in the present case, no such enquiry was conducted and the grievous nature of the crime was the only factor that was considered while awarding the death penalty”.

In the instant case, the bench said there was no separate hearing on sentencing in the trial court.

In September 2010, Madras High Court had confirmed the conviction and the award of the death sentence to the accused, which was upheld by the top court on February 5, 2013.