Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence and Strengthens Review Jurisdiction in SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2023 INSC 264)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2023 INSC 264), addressed critical issues surrounding the review jurisdiction in death penalty cases, the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the necessity of a comprehensive sentencing process that considers both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The petitioner, sentenced to death for the heinous crime of kidnapping and murdering a seven-year-old child, sought a review of his conviction and the death sentence, invoking precedents related to the fair review of capital punishment.

Summary of the Judgment

The petitioner, Sundar @ Sundarajanan, convicted of murder under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 of the Penal Code, challenged his death sentence by filing a review petition. The Supreme Court, referencing the Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014), emphasized the necessity of hearing death penalty review petitions in open court. The court scrutinized the petitioner’s claims regarding the inadmissibility of call detail records (CDRs) due to the absence of a Section 65B certificate. While upholding the conviction based on corroborative evidence, the Court recognized procedural lapses in the sentencing phase, ultimately commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment for not less than twenty years without reprieve or remission.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several landmark cases that have shaped the judicial landscape regarding the death penalty, electronic evidence admissibility, and the sentencing process:

• Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014): Established the necessity for open court hearings in death penalty review petitions.
• Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand (2021): Discussed the scope of review petitions and the requirement for errors apparent on the face of the record.
• Navjot Sandhu (2005): Initially interpreted Section 65B as allowing secondary evidence of electronic records without mandatory certification.
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014): Overruled Navjot Sandhu, mandating compliance with Section 65B for admissibility of electronic evidence.
• Shafi Mohammad Petitioner v. State Of H.P. & Others (2018): Attempted to dilute the mandatory nature of Section 65B but was later overruled.
• Other notable cases include Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab (1980), Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State Of Maharashtra (2021), and Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State Of Maharashtra (2019).

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning can be distilled into several key components:

• Review Jurisdiction: Emphasized that review petitions in death penalty cases must be heard in open court to ensure a fair procedural process, as per Mohd. Arif.
• Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Reinforced the necessity of presenting Section 65B certificates for electronic records like CDRs. Citing Anvar P.V. and overruling Navjot Sandhu and Shafi Mohammad, the Court stated that without compliance, such evidence remains inadmissible.
• Sentencing Procedure: Highlighted the lack of a separate sentencing hearing and failure to consider mitigating circumstances, contrary to the mandates of Section 235(2) of the CrPC and precedents like Bachan Singh. This lapse was a significant factor in commutating the death sentence.
• Mitigating Factors: Acknowledged the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal history, his conduct in prison, age at the time of the offense, and attempts at rehabilitation, which were insufficiently weighed during sentencing.

Impact

This judgment carries profound implications for future capital cases and the administration of justice in India:

• Strengthened Review Processes: Reinforces the requirement for transparent and thorough review hearings in death penalty cases, reducing the potential for procedural miscarriages of justice.
• Mandatory Electronic Evidence Compliance: Establishes a clear precedent that electronic evidence must meet Section 65B standards, ensuring the integrity and reliability of digital evidence in courts.
• Comprehensive Sentencing Considerations: Underscores the importance of separate sentencing hearings that thoroughly assess both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, promoting fair and individualized sentencing.
• Contempt of Court for Procedural Lapses: Sets a precedent for holding state authorities accountable for procedural oversights, as evidenced by the initiation of contempt proceedings against the Inspector of Police for withholding material facts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act

This section governs the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in court. For an electronic record like CDRs to be admissible, it must be accompanied by a certificate proving its authenticity under specified conditions. Failure to present this certificate renders the electronic evidence inadmissible, ensuring that digital data presented in court is reliable and has not been tampered with.

Rarest of the Rare Doctrine

Established in Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab, this doctrine dictates that the death penalty should only be imposed in cases where the crime is exceptionally heinous and where the offender does not present any likelihood of rehabilitation. This high threshold ensures that capital punishment is reserved for only the most egregious offenses, preventing disproportionate sentencing.

Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

Mitigating Circumstances: Factors that may lessen the severity of the offense or the culpability of the offender, such as lack of prior criminal history, age, or efforts toward rehabilitation.
Aggravating Circumstances: Factors that may increase the severity of the offense or the culpability of the offender, such as the brutality of the crime, motive, or impact on victims.

Contempt of Court

An offense committed against the authority or dignity of the judiciary. In this case, the non-disclosure of material facts by the police officer constituted an attempt to mislead the court, warranting contempt proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN v. STATE serves as a pivotal reference point for the administration of capital punishment in India. By mandating strict adherence to procedural requirements for electronic evidence and emphasizing a thorough, individualized approach to sentencing, the Court reinforces the principles of fair trial and justice. The commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing the gravity of heinous crimes with the necessity for humane and rehabilitative sentencing. Furthermore, the initiation of contempt proceedings highlights the Court's intolerance for procedural negligence, ensuring that all branches of the justice system uphold the highest standards of integrity and accountability.