The Madras High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of a couple who deliberately administered poison to their child who suffered from a mental disorder and subsequently died. The bench presiding over the appeal emphasised that parents have an absolute duty to care for their children regardless of whether they are born with disabilities, and no individual has the right to take the law into their own hands and end another person’s life. The court heard an appeal filed by the parents against the conviction and life sentence handed down by the Fast Track Mahila Court in Virudhunagar, where they had been found guilty under Sections 342 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fines. According to the prosecution case, the couple’s daughter was born in May 2009 with a mental disorder and was unable to maintain herself. In response to the challenges of caring for her, the mother, who had resigned from her position as a professor at a private college to look after the child, and the father decided to end her life. The parents took the child to the Kathappasamy Temple, administered “Tafgor” pesticide mixed in a drink, and when the child cried out, members of the public intervened, preventing further poisoning. The child was rushed to a Government Hospital and later referred to Government Rajaji Hospital for advanced medical care, but she succumbed to her injuries five days later. Following these events, the police registered an FIR and, after a trial, the parents were convicted by the trial court.
In their appeal, the parents contended that several alleged eyewitnesses had turned hostile, and they argued that the trial court had improperly convicted them solely on circumstantial evidence without directly linking them to the crime. They asserted that the medical report did not establish poisoning as the cause of death and that there was no material evidence to show that the child was given an organophosphorus poison. The appellants also pointed out that when the prosecution examined the owner of a fertiliser shop to show that the father had purchased the pesticide, the bill presented did not bear his signature and, therefore, was not an admissible document. They further argued that there had been delays in lodging the FIR and that despite significant infirmities in the prosecution’s case, the trial court had mechanically convicted them.
The High Court reviewed the evidence and rejected these arguments. It noted that the Accident Register clearly recorded that the parents had administered poison to the child, whose semi-conscious condition and constricted pupils were consistent with organophosphorus poisoning. The court also took note of testimony from the doctor who treated the child, who stated that the poison had spread throughout her body. Regarding the absence of poison detected in the viscera report, the court held that such a negative finding is not automatically fatal to the prosecution’s case, especially where the victim had undergone prolonged medical treatment, during which poisons may be metabolised or eliminated from the body. The court stated that in such cases, greater reliance must be placed on clinical diagnosis and testimony of the treating doctors rather than solely on the post-mortem report.
The court further observed that it was undisputed that the child was in the exclusive custody of her parents, and by law, they had a duty to explain the circumstances leading to her death. The parents had offered no plausible explanation for the events. The High Court noted that the prosecution had also provided corroborative evidence showing that the poison used was an organophosphorus insecticide and that the father had purchased it from a shopkeeper who identified him in court. Although several eyewitnesses turned hostile, the court held that the medical and circumstantial evidence sufficiently established that the poisoning had been administered by the accused.
While the bench expressed sympathy for the difficulties faced by the parents in caring for a mentally disabled child, it stressed that such personal distress cannot justify the taking of a life. The court stated that if the law were to permit parents to eliminate children born with mental retardation or other disabilities, no such child would survive in the world, and many parents already make significant sacrifices, even laying down their lives for children with disabilities. The duty of parents to care for their offspring, regardless of any disability, was emphasised as fundamental.
On these bases, the High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s findings and concluded that the conviction was supported by the evidence on record. The appeal, therefore, lacked merit, and the High Court upheld the life sentence and fine imposed on the parents, dismissing their challenge to the conviction. In doing so, the court reiterated the principle that no person has the right to take the law into their own hands and extinguish the life of another, and that legal responsibility and moral duty obligate parents to care for their children under all circumstances. The legal proceedings in the case were identified as S Muneeswaran and Another versus the State, and the parents’ counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor were recorded in the case documentation. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s stance that parental hardship does not constitute a legal defence for such acts of violence and that convictions in such serious criminal matters will be upheld where the evidence supports the finding of guilt.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.