Death Sentence Commuted in Review as Mitigation Was Never Weighed: Life Term, Minimum 20 Years Without Remission

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 IPC for kidnapping a 7-year-old boy returning from school in July 2009, demanding ransom from the boy's mother and killing him (paras 9-12). The Sessions Judge sentenced him to death, the Madras High Court confirmed it, and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on 5 February 2013 (paras 12-14). His review petition, dismissed in chambers, was recalled after Mohd. Arif and heard in open court (para 8). He attacked the call detail records and the missing Section 65B certificate, and sought commutation because no mitigation exercise was done (paras 18, 55-56).

Review lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record, not a rehearing of the appeal (para 17). The IMEI discrepancy lay only in the last 'Luhn check digit', so the seized phone was the same device (paras 23-24). A Section 65B certificate is now mandatory, but the trial ended while Navjot Sandhu held the field (paras 37-39). Although such a belated objection would ordinarily fail, as in Sonu, the Court eschewed the call records because a death sentence was involved (paras 44, 46). Eyewitnesses to the abduction, recoveries on the petitioner's statement and concurrent findings left no reasonable doubt (paras 48, 51, 53). The 'lingering doubt' theory does not apply (paras 58-59). On sentence, the trial court held no separate hearing and no court considered mitigating circumstances or reform (paras 71, 74, 79). The State must place material bearing on reform, and the court cannot be an indifferent by-stander (para 79). No prior antecedents, his age of 23, satisfactory prison conduct apart from an escape attempt and a catering diploma meant reformation could not be ruled out (para 88). Ordinary life imprisonment would still be inadequate for so gruesome a crime (paras 90, 93).