Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter

“No One Has the Right to Extinguish a Life — However Difficult the Circumstances”, In a heart-wrenching case involving the poisoning of a mentally retarded minor child by her own parents, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a powerful reaffirmation of criminal law principles, holding that “absence of poison in the viscera report alone need not be treated as conclusive proof that the victim has not died of poison.”

A Division Bench comprising Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the life imprisonment imposed on the parents under Sections 302 and 342 IPC.

The Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused administered organophosphorus poison (Dimethoate) to their daughter by mixing it in a cool drink at a temple.

Mental Distress and a Fatal Decision

The deceased child, born in 2009, was suffering from severe mental retardation from birth. The mother had resigned from her job to care for her. According to the prosecution, the parents, distressed and unable to cope, decided to end the child’s life.

On 1 October 2018, they took her to Kathappasamy Temple and administered “Tafgor” pesticide mixed in a cool drink. When the child cried out, bystanders intervened. The parents themselves took her to the hospital, where she was admitted in a semi-conscious state. After prolonged treatment, she died on 6 October 2018.

The Trial Court convicted both parents for murder and wrongful confinement. The present appeal challenged that conviction.

“They Mixed Tafgor and Administered It” — Accident Register as the Strongest Link

One of the most decisive pieces of evidence was the Accident Register (Ex.P2), recorded at the time of admission.

The duty doctor testified that the mother informed him that “they mixed 100 ml of Tafgor fertilizer in a cool drink and administered it to the child.” The child presented with constricted pupils and symptoms consistent with organophosphorus poisoning.

The High Court treated the Accident Register as the “earliest contemporaneous document” and held that such a statement, made voluntarily at the first point of medical contact, carries strong evidentiary value.

Importantly, the defence never suggested that a third party had administered the poison. The child was in the exclusive custody of her parents, and the Court emphasized that when a death occurs in such circumstances, the accused must offer a credible explanation — which they failed to do.

Purchase of Poison Proved — Circumstantial Chain Complete

The prosecution examined the fertilizer shop owner (P.W.13), who deposed that Accused No.1 purchased 500 ml of Tafgor on the very day of the incident. The bill (Ex.P3) was produced, and chemical analysis confirmed the container contained Dimethoate.

The Court found that the purchase of poison, admission before the doctor, consistent medical findings, and eventual death formed a seamless chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused.

“Clinical Evidence Prevails Over Chemical Silence” — Negative Viscera Report Not Fatal

A crucial defence argument was that the viscera report (Ex.P14) did not detect poison, and therefore the prosecution case must collapse.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Buddhadeb Saha v. State of W.B. and Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar, reiterating the settled principle that:

“Absence of detection of poison in the viscera report alone need not be treated as a conclusive proof of the fact that the victim has not died of poison.”

The Bench noted that the child survived for several days and underwent intensive treatment. In such cases, poison may be metabolized, eliminated, or rendered undetectable. Certain organic poisons also leave no identifiable trace in routine toxicological analysis.

The Court emphasized that medical jurisprudence recognizes several reasons for negative viscera findings, including detoxification, vomiting, purging, prolonged hospitalization, and chemical changes post-mortem.

Thus, the absence of poison in the viscera was held not to weaken the otherwise compelling evidence of poisoning.

Hostile Witnesses Not Enough to Break Prosecution Case

Although some eyewitnesses turned hostile, the Court held that conviction can be sustained on medical evidence and reliable documentary material.

The Bench observed that hostility of witnesses does not automatically destroy the prosecution case when the “core of the prosecution case stands established through cogent and consistent evidence.”

A Strong Moral Pronouncement

In a deeply reflective observation, the Court acknowledged the emotional strain faced by the parents but firmly stated:

“If the law permits the parents to eliminate the children born with mental retardation, no such child would survive in this world.”

The Bench underscored that no individual has the right to take the law into their own hands, regardless of distress or hardship. The sanctity of life, the Court implied, cannot be compromised by personal despair.

Conviction and Life Sentence Affirmed

Finding no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed:

Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 IPC

The judgment stands as a significant reaffirmation that a negative forensic report does not override strong medical and circumstantial evidence, especially in custodial poisoning cases.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026