According to both the defendants' accounts, prior to their capture, Chirsteen, who was facing financial difficulties and needed money to take care of her children, was hired by Datchinamurthy through connections and introductions to other people.

On 8 May 2015, the trial judge Tay Yong Kwang determined that both Christeen and Datchinamurthy were guilty as charged, as he found both of them aware of the existence of heroin and hence failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.

Christeen, who was certified as a courier and had given substantive assistance to the authorities in tackling drug offences, was spared the gallows and she was therefore sentenced to life imprisonment, with effect from the date of her arrest.

However, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed his appeal on 5 February 2016, as the three judges - Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang and Kan Ting Chiu - determined that Datchinamurthy had failed to rebut the legal presumption of him carrying the illegal drugs and the totality of evidence had suggested no error in convicting Datchinamurthy of his original drug trafficking charge.

[5] Datchinamurthy subsequently submitted an appeal for clemency to the President of Singapore, hoping that his death sentence can be commuted to life imprisonment.

Three other Malaysian convicts on death row - Gobi Avedian, Abdul Helmi Ab Halim and Rahmat Karimon - also lost their clemency pleas at around the same time Datchinamurthy failed to receive his pardon, along with nine other prisoners.

[15][16][17] After the loss of his clemency petition, on the orders of the President of Singapore, a death warrant was issued for Datchinamurthy, who was scheduled to hang on 12 February 2020 at Changi Prison for his crime.

[21] The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) also issued correction orders under POFMA towards Malaysian human rights group Lawyers for Liberty for starting the above allegations of illegal execution methods, calling these claims "baseless" and "untrue".

Syed Suhail Syed Zin, a Singaporean drug offender who was sentenced to death on 2 December 2015, tried to argue that he was sentenced to death on a date which took place later than Datchinamurthy, yet his own execution was conducted earlier than Datchinamurthy's unscheduled hanging, and due to the travel restrictions of foreigners' entry into Singapore to visit their relatives in prison due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore, he was discriminated as a Singaporean through the scheduling of executions.

She and the rest of her family members were present at the vigil held for Datchinamurthy but unable to attend since foreigners were prohibited from taking part in any protests in Singapore.

[42][43] In addition, there were allegations that Datchinamurthy was subjected to harsh living conditions while undergoing solitary confinement on death row at Changi Prison.

Furthermore, the seven-year life on death row took a considerable toll on Datchinamurthy's emotional and mental health, and he began to suffer from high blood pressure, and even attempted suicide once.

She stated that Datchinamurthy grew to reflect and repent on his mistakes, and while he accepted his punishment and imminent fate, he still hoped to continue to live and also, to tell other youngsters to not follow his example if he was ever freed.

Lakshmi also said that the death penalty would not only affect one person but the loss of a loved one to the gallows would be an emotional life sentence for the bereaved family.

Datchinamurthy's mother and three sisters also faced ostracisation and bullying from unsympathetic employers, who denied their requests for leave to visit him in prison.

In her last paragraphs, Priya told Datchinamurthy that she would reunite with him when the moment of her death arrives, and she hoped that he would be free of his sufferings and live well in the afterlife.

The Court of Appeal also reiterated that this did not mean that a prisoner awaiting capital punishment would automatically be granted a stay of execution on the basis of unequal treatment, since the facts were needed to show if there is a relevant pending legal application in the prisoner's suit, which they mentioned was a contrast to the countless unmeritorious appeals made by executed drug trafficker Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam (who was hanged on 27 April 2022).

The three-judge appellate panel commented that Datchinamurthy appeared to be "singled out" when it comes to the scheduling of his execution in contrast to the twelve other plaintiffs of his civil lawsuit.

[57][58] Many rights activists showed relief at the temporary respite despite their knowledge that the postponement of Datchinamurthy's execution would not be a permanent reprieve from the gallows.

This stand was not agreed upon by the Court of Appeal, which determined that Datchinamurthy's death sentence should not be carried out since he had an ongoing civil claim that had not yet concluded.

The UN human rights experts also expressed their concern towards the alleged discriminatory treatment of individuals belonging to minorities (including Datchinamurthy who is an ethnic Indian Malaysian), as attributed to the large number of minorities being sentenced to death row for drug trafficking, and the rumoured reprisals against the legal counsels of death row prisoners.

They also stated that the mandatory death penalty "constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life" since it is imposed without the discretion of considering the mitigating factors of the case or the personal circumstances of the defendant, for which they indirectly referred to the verdict of mandatory death received by Datchinamurthy for drug trafficking without taking into account his personal circumstances or mitigating factors of his case.

[63] In response to the United Nations' criticism of Singapore, Ambassador Umej Bhatia defended the government's decisions to execute Nagaenthran and Abdul Kahar Othman, as well as their use of the death penalty on drugs.

Bhatia stated that all criminal proceedings in Singapore were conducted with due process before an "impartial and independent judiciary", and the death penalty would be passed on any suspect if their guilt were proven according to the law.

He drew attention to Singapore's decades-long reputation for having a fair and impartial criminal justice system, and an independent and effective judiciary.

Bhatia ended off his statement by citing that every country has its sovereign right to determine its own criminal justice system, considering its own circumstances and in accordance with its international law obligations.

[68][69][70] On 3 August 2022, Datchinamurthy was also one of the 24 prisoners (which included murderer Iskandar Rahmat and drug traffickers Pannir Selvam Pranthaman and Abdul Rahim Shapiee) to sue to Attorney-General for the obstruction of the inmates' access to defence counsel, which led to Datchinamurthy and many others having to argue their appeals unrepresented, which allegedly create unfairness to the inmates in legal proceedings.

[74] While pending their appeal in relation to this lawsuit, British lawyer Edward Fitzgerald, who was formerly the Queen's Counsel in January 1995, applied for permission to represent Datchinamurthy and Lingkesvaran in their lawsuit, while another lawyer from Australia, Theodoros Kassimatis (also a former Queen's Counsel in March 2017), also applied to represent the remaining two plaintiffs Saminathan and Jumaat.

Justice Hoo also said that the legal rights of the death row prisoners were not violated by the provisions of the Act, since the law was not passed for enforcement yet.