It was the same Supreme Court Bench that confirmed death penalty for youth
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the execution, on the eve of hanging, of Sundar alias Sundararajan, who was sentenced to death for kidnapping and murdering a seven-year-old in Tamil Nadu after the boy’s parents failed to pay him a ransom of Rs. 5 lakh.
Same Bench
It was the same Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and J.S. Khehar, which had on February 5 upheld the death sentence on him, holding that no leniency should be shown in cases of `kidnap, demand for ransom and murder, that now acted on the writ petition of Sundar of Karkudal village in Vriddhachalam taluk,
Earlier, senior counsel V. Giri said the court had failed to note that Sundar was the only son and earning member in his family.
His father died of cardiac arrest after the Madras High Court confirmed the trial court judgment of death sentence.
Now aged only 23 (he was aged 19 on the date of crime), Kumar could be reformed and his continued existence would not be a menace to society.
Larger bench should hear such cases
Counsel said that as per the Law Commission’s recommendation all death penalty matters before the Supreme Court must be heard by a Bench of five judges, and this must be implemented by amending the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. In the alternative, at least three judges ought to hear criminal appeals.
“The convict must be left with no doubt in his mind that every possible opportunity was given to him under the Constitution before his life was taken away following due process of law.”
Pointing out that in the Dharmapuri bus burning case, the Supreme Court had stayed the execution of three convicts and that the matter was still pending, Sundar pleaded for a similar stay until his review petition was decided by a larger Bench.
Keywords: capital punishment
"...no doubt in his mind..." - How will the Court understand if the convict has no doubt in his mind?
Details like the one put forth by counsel for the accused can be drawn up by the thousand. Regardless of whether those arguments are legally tenable, their adjudications take time, especially in our legal system. Is this not misuse of the provisions made for adequate representation for the accused by an accused already pronounced guilty at several levels to attempt to stave off punishment and knock off the quantum of punishment by a quasi-legal process?
The man whatever may be his age had indulged in a very serious crime of killing an innocent small girl He should be punished with death sentence. Othewise it would send a wrong signal
I differ. It is not easy and there is virtually no mechanism for
monitoring such people. I accept human life is most precisous and cannot be valued against any currency but this kind of mentality is dangerous. Simple one time criminals may be given a chance to reform. If there is a human being which doesn't value other life, what is the use of upholding our morals. Terrorists will come and kill and they will use our morals and values to escape. Who is going to monitor him? it is possible in the existing set up?
At age 19, a teenager, he committed a crime (killed) for money. The
rule of the land will take his life for his crime.
How much Sundararajan could comprehend about what his act could result
into and what repercussions he will face in life? as a teenager and
what precedence the rule of land which has been in existence since
ages sets by taking his life?
I find both Sundararajan and rule of land to be young and immature.
Good that his hanging was stayed and his hanging will now be reviewed
by a larger bench.
its better to give him another chance, however gruesome his act was,
there is scope of his reform... hope he could be counselled and i
believe as he had by a great luck escaped death at the last moment, he
will have the mind and heart to reform...he should be monitored for a
certain period and provided he uses the opportunity that is given him in
prison for the goodness of him and the community.
Please Email the Editor