Case Name	Sundar v. State
Citation	2023 SCC OnLine SC 310
Court	The Supreme Court of India
Bench	Chief Justice DY ChandrachudJustice Hima KohliJustice P.S. Narasimha
Decided on	March 21st, 2023
Case No.	Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 159-160 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011

INTRODUCTION

The case unfolds as a dramatic legal thriller, with a death row inmate frantically seeking relief through a review petition that requests a comprehensive reevaluation of both his murder conviction and the impending death sentence. The landmark decision strongly influences the legal framework in which these proceedings take place in Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India. This landmark case emphasizes the irreversible gravity of the death penalty and advocates for a cautious approach to its implementation. Importantly, it required that the reconsideration of death penalty cases occur in a visible arena of an open court rather than at the discretion of a mere circulation-based decision.

The petitioner, a crucial actor in this court drama, is accused of the horrible crimes of kidnapping and murdering a vulnerable soul—a 7-year-old boy whose innocence was tragically lost. The heart of the petitioner’s legal argument relies on the difficult route of his review petition. Initially dismissed via a process of circulation, the petition has now been resurrected and forced back into the legal limelight. The petitioner’s challenge is woven into the fabric of the Mohd. Arif precedent seeks sanctuary in the concepts it espouses, respecting the deep finality of the death sentence.

The petitioner’s plea centers on a delicate and current issue: the admission of electronic evidence, particularly call detail data (CDRs), in the absence of the required Section 65B certificate. This legal issue represents a significant stage in the case, emphasizing the petitioner’s desire for justice and fairness within the confines of the established legal structure.

As the courtroom becomes the setting for this judicial spectacle, the evolving story captures the conflict between the irrevocable nature of the death penalty, the need for open scrutiny in review proceedings, and the stringent criteria controlling the admittance of technological evidence. The petitioner’s fate hangs in the balance in this crucible of legal complexities, representing the profound confluence of justice, precedent, and the shifting limits of legal interpretation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case centers on a serious accusation against the petitioner, who is accused of kidnapping and murdering a seven-year-old child. Prior legal actions have relied on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony and finding physical items. These factors combined formed the foundation for the petitioner’s conviction.

As presented throughout the trial, the prosecution’s story emphasizes the seriousness of the alleged crimes. According to witness testimony, notably that of PW2 and PW3 (PW – Plaintiff witness), the petitioner was observed driving the victim away on his motorbike. These sightings happened shortly after the youngster got off the school bus. The petitioner’s identification at the subsequent test identification parade strengthens the prosecution’s case by linking the accused to the circumstances surrounding the victim’s disappearance.

Material objects necessary for circumstantial evidence were apparently recovered based on the petitioner’s allegations. In the court’s opinion, this added to the narrative that established the petitioner as the culprit. The precise connection of the petitioner to the offense via a chain of evidence was critical in achieving the original conviction.

In response to the petitioner’s conviction and the potential of the death penalty, I filed a review petition. The initial dismissal of this petition through distribution marks the beginning of a more complex judicial process. Importantly, this decision necessitates a re-evaluation of the precedent established in Mohd: Arif v Registrar, Supreme Court of India.

The Mohd. Arif precedent, as emphasized by the court, emphasizes the irrevocable character of the death punishment. It makes a substantial procedural change, requiring that review petitions for death penalty cases be considered in open court rather than disposed of by circulation. This move, highlighted by a commitment to a more thorough and open review procedure, paved the way for reviewing the petitioner’s case.

The nature of the offenses charged against the petitioner, which involve the kidnapping and murder of a small child, heightens the case’s legal and moral aspects. The court, faced with balancing the demand for justice with the probable irreversibility of the death penalty, has reached a key point. The circumstantial evidence that served as the foundation for the first conviction is now being scrutinized meticulously per the criteria in Mohd. Arif.

In essence, the facts of the case form a somber picture: a child’s terrible death, an accused facing the worst of punishments, and a court system negotiating the difficulties of justice and mercy. As the case progresses in the shadow of precedent, the petitioner’s fate is determined not only by the events that occurred but also by the growing legal principles that define the pursuit of justice in situations of life and death.

ISSUES

1. Whether the petitioner’s request for a review is anchored in the Mohd. Arif precedent and asserting the necessity of open-court hearings in death penalty review petitions, valid? 
2. Whether the court needs to scrutinize the original judgment for potential errors, particularly concerning the admissibility of electronic evidence, specifically call detail records (CDRs), in the absence of the requisite Section 65B certificate?

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner contends that the review is necessary in light of the Mohd. Arif precedent emphasizing the irreversibility of death penalty rulings and the need for open court proceedings. They contend that the original judgment may include mistakes, specifically contesting the inclusion of electronic evidence, such as call detail data (CDRs), in the absence of the required Section 65B certificate. The petitioner claims there are flaws in the prosecution’s evidence, including problems with phone number proofs and irregularities in IMEI numbers.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State, on the other hand, denies the petitioner’s arguments, claiming that the evidence provided during the trial is consistent and interconnected, proving the petitioner’s guilt. The State contends that the petitioner’s concerns about the purported ransom call and IMEI number anomalies are unfounded, citing the latter as a typographical error. Furthermore, the State claims that the electronic evidence, including CDRs, meets the criteria of Section 65B, citing precedents. Overall, the State upholds the original judgment’s integrity and questions the need for a review based on the petitioner’s assertions.

JUDGMENT

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the petitioner’s arguments. It determined that the evidence produced during the trial formed a coherent and interrelated body that firmly supported the prosecution’s case. The court thoroughly examined the petitioner’s arguments, focusing on issues about the supposed ransom call and IMEI number anomalies.

First, the court rejected the petitioner’s unfounded assertion about the ransom call number. It emphasised the evidence’s consistency and interconnectedness, highlighting the prosecution’s accomplishment in establishing a cohesive narrative that led to the petitioner’s guilt.

The court also addressed the matter of IMEI number anomalies, explaining that the variation in the last digit was due to a typographical error rather than posing a significant challenge to the prosecution’s evidence. This comprehensive explication reaffirmed the court’s belief in the credibility and correctness of the evidence given.

In cases involving electronic evidence, the court emphasized the need to conform to the standards of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It emphasised that the admissibility of call detail records (CDRs) depended on meeting the strict standards outlined in Section 65B. This legal position was reinforced by references to relevant precedents, which established a clear criterion for the admissibility of electronic evidence in court proceedings.

After methodically dissecting each part of the petitioner’s claims, the court concluded that they lacked substance. The petitioner’s contentions were comprehensively dismissed, reinforcing the original judgment’s integrity and maintaining the validity and credibility of the prosecution’s evidence. The court’s emphasis on the significance of complying to lawful electronic evidence standards reinforced the

ANALYSIS

The study of the judgement entails a thorough examination of the court’s interpretation and implementation of legislative provisions, with a primary focus on Section 65B. In subsequent instances, the court’s recognition of opposing viewpoints reflects a vital engagement with shifting legal perspectives, ensuring a full study of the legal environment.

The court’s concentration on meeting Section 65B requirements for electronic evidence admission demonstrates its commitment to respecting procedural norms. The research also investigates the retrospective implications of the Anvar P.V. decision on cases determined prior to its announcement, emphasizing possible difficulties in reopening criminal proceedings based on electronic records allowed without a Section 65B certificate.

The examination of objections to CDRs without a Section 65B certificate sheds light on the court’s view on procedural objections during trial and the conditions under which exceptions may be granted. This analytical component gives insight into the pragmatic considerations that courts may use to guarantee a fair trial.

The citation to Mohd. Arif v. State complicates the analysis by demonstrating the court’s readiness to disregard electronic evidence without the necessary Section 65B certificate in order to entertain a review petition involving a death sentence case. This demonstrates the court’s understanding of the severity of death sentence rulings and its commitment to ensuring a comprehensive review process.

Overall, the study indicates the court’s careful examination of legal intricacies, knowledge of competing precedents, and dedication to striking a delicate balance between procedural formalities and the needs of justice.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the court upholds the petitioner’s guilt for kidnapping and murder while dismissing the grounds for review. The wording suggests a comprehensive examination of electronic evidence, emphasizing the need to follow Section 65B criteria. The case demonstrates the complexities of revisiting death sentence verdicts, especially in light of changing interpretations and precedents. The court’s rulings on the acceptance of electronic evidence, particularly in cases of serious offenses, reverberate across the nation. The difficulties of this case show the importance of taking a sophisticated approach to the junction of legal norms, technological evidence, and death penalty sentence review.