Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

 Supreme Court Grants Premature Release to Mother Convicted of Murdering Children

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 4 May 2023, Supreme Court granted premature release to Nagarathinam, a mother who was convicted of murdering her two children by administering poison. The judgment addressed both the appellant's request for conversion of her conviction and the rejection of her application for premature release.

The appellant had been in a relationship with a man named Suresh, who frequently threatened her. Fearing for her and her children's lives, Nagarathinam made the devastating decision to commit suicide along with her twin sons, Ramar and Laxmanan. She administered poison to her children, and when she attempted to consume it herself, her niece intervened, preventing further harm. Tragically, the two children died upon arrival at the hospital.

Initially, the appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 but acquitted her under Section 309. Dissatisfied with the verdict, Nagarathinam approached the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that her actions fell under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They contended that Nagarathinam was under sudden provocation and that her extreme decision to commit family suicide should be considered an extenuating circumstance. Furthermore, they invoked two precedents from the Madras High Court to support their case.

However, the Supreme Court, after a detailed analysis of the facts and relevant provisions of the IPC, held that the appellant's actions did not fall within the exceptions provided in Section 300. Consequently, the Court refused to convert the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Turning to the issue of premature release, the Court noted that the appellant had already served nearly 20 years in prison and had applied for early release. The State Level Committee, after considering her conduct and prolonged incarceration, had recommended her release. However, the State of Tamil Nadu rejected this recommendation, citing the cruel and brutal nature of the offense.

The Supreme Court observed that while the crime committed by Nagarathinam was undoubtedly grave, her intention was not to murder her children but to end her own life. The Court opined that the rejection of premature release was unjustified, considering her suffering and undisputed reflective conduct. Accordingly, the Court set aside the State's order and directed the immediate release of the appellant.

 4 May 2023

NAGARATHINAM vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/04-May-2023-NAGARATHINAM-Vs-State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News