SC Posts Review Petition In Death Penalty Case For Open Court Hearing [Read Order]
The Supreme Court has posted for an open court hearing a review petition filed by a murder convict whose death penalty was affirmed by the court in 2013.Sunder @ Sundararajan was convicted for the kidnap-cum-murder of a 7-year-old boy. The apex court had affirmed the death sentence awarded to the accused. A review petition was dismissed in March 2013.In view of the judgment in Mohd. Arif...
The Supreme Court has posted for an open court hearing a review petition filed by a murder convict whose death penalty was affirmed by the court in 2013.
Sunder @ Sundararajan was convicted for the kidnap-cum-murder of a 7-year-old boy. The apex court had affirmed the death sentence awarded to the accused. A review petition was dismissed in March 2013.
In view of the judgment in Mohd. Arif @Ashfaq Vs. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud recalled the order in review petition and posted it for an open court hearing.
The execution of the death sentence is already stayed in a writ petition filed by the convict. The bench said the said order would continue until further orders.
Background
In its judgment in appeal filed by Sunder, the Supreme Court bench of Justice P Sathashivam and Justice JS Kehar had confirmed the death sentence taking note of ‘brutal mindset’ in strangulating the boy to death, and tying the dead body of the child in a gunny bag, and finally throwing it into a water tank.
One of the aggravating circumstances noted by the court in its judgment is interesting. It said: “The choice of kidnapping the particular child for ransom, was well planned and consciously motivated. The parents of the deceased had four children – three daughters and one son. Kidnapping the only male child was to induce maximum fear in the mind of his parents. Purposefully killing the sole male child, has grave repercussions for the parents of the deceased. Agony for parents for the loss of their only male child, who would have carried further the family lineage, and is expected to see them through their old age, is unfathomable. Extreme misery caused to the aggrieved party, certainly adds to the aggravating circumstances.”
Read the Order Here