The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of a couple for killing their nine-year-old daughter with a mental disorder. The Court said parents have a duty to care for every child.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of a couple who killed their 9-year-old daughter, who suffered from a mental disorder.
A Division Bench consisting of Justices GK Ilanthiraiyan and R. Poornima stated that if the law allowed parents to eliminate children born with mental disabilities, none of those children would remain alive.
The Court emphasized that it is the duty of parents to take care of their children, regardless of whether they are born with mental illness, physical disabilities, or without any disabilities at all.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Allows Parents to Evict Children from Property If They Neglect Them
The Court stated,
“It is the bounden duty of the parents to take care of their child, whether the child is born with mental illness, physical disability, or without any disability at all,”
The Court also asserted that personal distress cannot override the rule of law, and individuals cannot take matters into their own hands.
“No one has the right to take the law into their own hands and extinguish the life of another person.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by S. Muneeswaran and Revathi, upholding their conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court.
The Bench remarked,
“If the law permits the parents to eliminate the children born with mental retardation, no such child would survive in this world,”
The couple’s conviction arose from events on October 1, 2018, when they took their daughter, born in 2009 and requiring constant care due to her mental condition, to the Kathappasamy Temple in Virudhunagar district.
There, they mixed “Tafgor” fertilizer (Dimethoate, an organophosphorus insecticide) with a cool drink and gave it to their child.
Despite bystanders intervening and rushing the child to the hospital, she succumbed to her condition on October 6, 2018, after receiving treatment.
The couple faced charges under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder and a lesser term for wrongful confinement.
Before the High Court, the defendants contended that eyewitnesses had become hostile, the viscera report showed no poison, and the prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence. They also questioned the admissibility of a bill that allegedly showed the pesticide purchase.
The Court dismissed these claims. It noted that when the child was admitted to the hospital, the parents themselves informed the doctor about administering Tafgor poison in a cool drink. An accident register documented that the child was semi-conscious with constricted pupils, which aligned with symptoms of organophosphorus poisoning.
The court remarked,
“It is a settled principle of law that a negative viscera report is not automatically fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the victim had undergone prolonged medical treatment. In cases where the victim survives for several days after consuming poison and receives treatment, the poison may be metabolized or eliminated from the body before death,”
The Court further observed that the child was solely in the custody of her parents. Testimony from the fertilizer shop owner confirmed that the first accused had purchased 500 ml of Tafgor on the day of the incident and recognized the accused in court.
Thus, the Court upheld the trial court’s decision.
The ruling highlighted that a child’s birth imposes an undeniable moral and legal obligation on the parents.
The Court explicitly dismissed any justification stemming from hardship.
The Bench highlighted,
“It must be borne in mind that the child did not come into this world on her own but was born to the accused themselves,”
The appellants were represented by advocate Jegadeesh Pandian, and the State was represented by Advocate RN Anbunithi.
Case Title: Muneeswaran Vs State of Tamil Nadu