Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

 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"]

Similar News