Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

 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