SC confirms death sentence for kidnapping & killing of child
A man hailing from Tamil Nadu, who kidnapped and strangulated a seven-year old boy to death in 2009 when Rs five lakh ransom was not paid for his release, lost out on Tuesday in the Supreme Court.
New Delhi: A man hailing from Tamil Nadu, who kidnapped and strangulated a seven-year old boy to death in 2009 when Rs five lakh ransom was not paid for his release, lost out on Tuesday in the Supreme Court which upheld the death sentence slapped on him by lower courts.
Refusing to show mercy, a bench of justices P Sathasivam and JS Khehar said that killing of the boy, who was acquainted with the convict Sundararajan, shows extreme mental perversion not worthy of human condonation.
"Kidnapping of a child was committed with the motive of carrying home a ransom. On account of the non-payment of ransom, a minor child’s murder was committed.
This fact demonstrates that the accused had no value for human life. The instant circumstance demonstrates extreme mental perversion not worthy of human condonation," the bench said.
In this case, the convict had kidnapped class II student Suresh from his school at Karkudal village in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu and asked for Rs five lakh ransom from family members of the boy.
Later on the convict strangulated the boy to death when the ransom was not paid for his release and the dead body of the child was then tied in a gunny bag and thrown into a water tank.
Sundararajan was then apprehended by the police and put on trial for the offence of murder and kidnapping. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to death which was upheld by the Madras High Court.
Sundararajan then approached the apex court challenging his conviction and death sentence.
The apex court after hearing his contention came to the conclusion that he failed to bring out even "a single mitigating circumstance" to interfere in the death sentence.
"The accused caused the murder of child of 7 years. The facts and circumstances of the case do not depict any previous enmity between the parties. There is no grave and sudden provocation, which had compelled the accused to take the life of an innocent child. The murder of a child, in such circumstances makes this a case of extreme culpability," the bench said.
"The manner in which the child was murdered, and the approach and method adopted by the accused, disclose the traits of outrageous criminality in the behaviour of the accused....All this was done, in a well thought out and planned manner. This approach of the accused reveals a brutal mindset of the highest order," it said.