Supreme Court pauses death penalty of man convicted for 2010 murder of 7-year-old

The Supreme Court has stayed the death penalty of Sukhjinder Singh, alias Sukha, convicted for the brutal murder of a seven-year-old child in 2010. Singh was sentenced to death by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in August this year.
A special bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, K V Vishwanathan, and Prashant Kumar Mishra paused the execution after reviewing a mitigation report. The report highlighted that Singh was only 23 at the time of the crime and is now 37, suggesting the possibility of reform.
The court scheduled the next hearing for 16 weeks later and directed the State of Punjab to submit a report from the probation officer. It also asked the Superintendent of Central Jail in Amritsar to provide details on Singh’s work, conduct, and behaviour during his incarceration. Additionally, the court ordered the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh to conduct a psychological evaluation of the accused.
The mitigation report indicated that Singh had been under extreme mental stress and had attempted suicide. It also stated, “The petitioner is no longer a threat to society and has shown signs of reformation.”
The report criticised the High Court’s sentencing process, noting that neither psychiatric nor psychological evaluations were submitted before confirming the death penalty. The court had failed to assess the chances of Singh’s rehabilitation, which should have been considered as mitigating evidence.
The High Court, in confirming the death sentence, had stressed the seriousness of the crime, noting that the boy was the only son in his family and that his kidnapping had shocked the local community. Despite receiving a ransom from the father, Singh killed the child.
Singh’s defence, represented by Advocate Harvinder Singh Maan, highlighted several flaws in the prosecution’s case in a special leave petition to the Supreme Court. The plea argued that the phone used for ransom calls was not linked to Singh and that witness statements were inconsistent. It also pointed out that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence with significant gaps, yet the lower courts relied on conjecture to convict him.