Before Imposing The Death Penalty, It Must Be Determined Whether The Convict Can Or Cannot Be Reformed - SC

The Supreme Court stated on Tuesday that before imposing the death penalty on a convict, it must be determined that the convict cannot be reformed. The court emphasized the need to consider mitigating circumstances when making this determination. Sundarrajan, who was convicted of kidnapping and murdering a 7-year-old boy in 2009, had his death sentence commuted as a result of this ruling. The Supreme Court made this decision in response to a review petition filed by Sundarrajan against a 2013 verdict that had upheld his death sentence. Additionally, the court issued a notice to the Inspector of Police of Kammapuram Police Station in Tamil Nadu's Cuddalore for concealing information about the petitioner's conduct in prison.

In 2009, Sundarrajan was convicted of kidnapping and murdering a 7-year-old boy. He was given the death penalty by the trial court and this sentence was upheld by all appellate courts. In 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, but the order was recalled in 2018 following a judgment that mandated all review petitions involving the death penalty be heard in open court. The petition was then reheard, and in Tuesday's judgment, the court took into consideration the fact that the convict was poor, had no prior criminal record, suffered from hypertension, and had obtained a diploma in food catering while in prison. The court also noted that the lower courts had failed to consider mitigating circumstances relating to Sundarrajan.

The Court noted that the convict, in this case, is not beyond the possibility of being reformed. The Court also took issue with a paragraph in the previous order that dismissed the review petitions, which emphasized the gravity of the crime because the victim was the only male child of the parents. The Court emphasized that the sex of the child alone cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance.

Therefore, the Court commuted Sundarrajan's death sentence to life imprisonment. However, the Court felt that the usual term of life imprisonment (which is around 14 years) would not be proportional in this case. As a result, the Court ordered that the convict should be in prison for a minimum of 20 years without any chance of release or reduction of the sentence.