Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police (2023)

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction for kidnapping for ransom and murder. But it changed the sentence from death to life imprisonment for not less than 20 years without remission. The reason: the courts below did not give a fair hearing on sentencing and did not study the accused’s mitigating circumstances.

Issues

• Was the death penalty justified on the facts?
• Did the courts properly consider mitigating circumstances before awarding death?
• Was a meaningful sentencing hearing given to the accused?

Rules

• Bachan Singh (1980): Death penalty only in the “rarest of rare” cases, after balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
• Sentencing Hearing: Courts must give a fair and real opportunity to present mitigation, even if the accused remains silent.
• Reformation Focus: Possibility of reform must be examined and ruled out before imposing death.

Arguments

Judgment

• Conviction under IPC 364A and 302 upheld.
• Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for not less than 20 years without remission.
• Reason: No meaningful sentencing hearing and no genuine mitigation inquiry.
• Courts must avoid stereotypes; a remark about the victim being an “only son” was called out as a patriarchal value judgment.

Ratio

Before awarding death penalty, the court must actively gather and weigh mitigating circumstances and consider the real possibility of reform. A mere focus on the cruelty of the crime is not enough.

Why It Matters

• Reaffirms that death penalty is an exception, not the rule.
• Sets a clear duty on courts to inquire into mitigation, even without defence input.
• Rejects value judgments based on social stereotypes at sentencing.

Key Takeaways

1. Conviction stands; sentence reduced to life (20 years minimum, no remission).
2. Mitigation is mandatory; courts must actively collect and assess it.
3. “Rarest of rare” requires careful, reasoned balancing—crime gravity alone is insufficient.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: RIM — Rare case, Inquiry into mitigation, Minimum 20 years.

• Spot the Rare: Ask if it truly meets the “rarest of rare”.
• Search for Inquiry: Was mitigation actively gathered?
• Set the Minimum: If not death, ensure a proportionate minimum term.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Mitigating Circumstances

Facts that reduce blame or show scope for reform (e.g., age, health, no prior record).

Rarest of Rare

A strict test to decide if death penalty is warranted.

Sentencing Hearing

A focused hearing on the appropriate punishment after conviction.

FAQs

Related Cases

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) — “Rarest of rare” doctrine.
• Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014) — Review in open court in death cases.