Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty.
Trending Today Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court permits the petitioner to get involved in ongoing proceedings but rejects another petition contesting the Places of Worship Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court: Child in Womb During Accident Is Subject To Reimbursement Under MV Act What it implies signifies Sam Altman claims that OpenAI’s GPUs are “melting” over Ghibli-style AI art Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Gurminder Singh, Punjab Advocate General, Steps Down Over 3 Crore Cases Disposed of in First National Lok Adalat of 2025; Settlement Value Crosses ₹18,212 Crore AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF CSR IN THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 On April 14, the center announces a day off in honor of Ambedkar’s birthday anniversary. The Supreme Court requires a preliminary investigation before filing a formal complaint for some speech and expression-related offenses. Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. NITU KUMARI 03 Apr 2025 SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICEOn 21 March 2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAINHERENT JURISDICTIONReview Petition (Crl.) Nos. 159-160 of 2013INCriminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011 Sundar @ Sundarrajan … Petitioner versusState (India) by Inspector of Police … Respondent Date Of Judgment:- March 21, 2023Case citation:- 2023 INSC 324Presiding judges:-Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice)Hima Kohli Factual Background On 27 July 2009, the Petitioner kidnapped a seven-year-old child in Kammapuram, Tamil Nadu. He made two calls to the victim’s mother, demanding a ransom of Rs 5 lakhs. On 30 July 2009, the police raided the house of the Petitioner and arrested him and a co-accused. The Petitioner confessed to strangling the child and disposing of his body in a tank. On the basis of the Petitioner’s confession, the police recovered the victim’s body from the tank. The petitioner was convicted by the Cuddalore Trial Court of kidnapping and killing the child. In accordance with Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, he was found guilty of kidnapping and murder and given the death penalty. The co-accused was found not guilty of any charges. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his conviction before the Madras High Court. Additionally, a Supreme Court of India appeal heard by a Division Bench consisting of two judges was denied. The conviction and the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court were maintained by both appellate courts. In Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2014 INSC 590, the Supreme Court ruled that applications seeking a review of death penalty sentences have to be heard in public. The petitioner contended that because his conviction contained judicial mistakes, it should be reviewed. He maintained that even if his guilt were proven, his sentence should be mitigated because the courts had not taken into account mitigating circumstances when they sentenced him to death. The State of Tamil Nadu argued that the claimed mistakes did not justify the Supreme Court’s limited review authority. Issue Of the Case (i) Should the conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder (under Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) be reviewed by the Supreme Court?(ii) Was it appropriate to give the petitioner the death penalty? Judgment The Supreme Court upheld the petitioner’s conviction for kidnapping and murder. However, it came to the conclusion that neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had considered mitigating circumstances while determining whether to execute the Petitioner, which was only appropriate in very rare situations. The Supreme Court changed the petitioner’s sentence to life imprisonment for at least 20 years with no chance of parole. The court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Chandrachud. a. Ratio Decidendi No errors apparent on the face of the record The prosecution‘s case was supported by compelling witness testimony and documentary evidence, and the court determined that the petitioner had failed to cast a reasonable doubt on it. The conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping and murder was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which was satisfied with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, the High Court, and its Division Bench. Examining both aggravating and mitigating conditions The Supreme Court determined that before imposing the death penalty, the Trial Court had not given the Petitioner a proper hearing on sentencing. Neither the Trial Court nor the appellate courts had sincerely attempted to take into account mitigating factors that would indicate the Petitioner’s potential for reform or rehabilitation. Rather, the punishment was enforced and validated based only on the heinousness of the offense. The Supreme Court’s Division Bench concluded that the Petitioner’s choice to kill a family’s sole son, who would have continued the family line, constituted an aggravating circumstance. Conclusion The Supreme Court of India modified the petitioner’s death sentence to life imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years without mercy or remission in the case of Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police. Although the court took into account the mitigating circumstances and determined that the death penalty was not justified, it affirmed the petitioner’s conviction for the kidnapping and murder of a 7-year-old boy. Additionally, the court directed the Registry to register a suo motu contempt proceeding against the Inspector of Police for concealing material information regarding the petitioner’s conduct in prison. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as sadalawpublications@gmail.com. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case laws Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. Supreme Court of India Significance of mitigating factors when awarding the death penalty. sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 3, 2025 • Case law, Live cases • No Comments Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: Soldiers brave icy winds while we sip on hot cappuccinos: Delhi High Court slams denial of disability pension: sadalawpublications@gmail.com • April 1, 2025 • Case law • No
