Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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"]

Latest Legal News