Brief Facts
- The Appellant is stated to have had an affair with one Suresh, who used to threaten her often. This led her to take the decision to commit suicide along with her children. Pursuant to her decision to adopt such a course of action, she bought pesticides and administered poison to her two children. Thereafter, when the appellant poured the pesticide in a tumbler to consume it herself, her niece pushed it down. However, unfortunately, the two children were declared dead on arrival in the hospital leading to the institution of FIR under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- The Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 & 309 of the IPC. Thereafter, in appeal the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the Appellant and acquitted her for the offence under Section 309 IPC, however upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Further, the Appellant having suffered imprisonment for almost 20 years applied for premature release. However, the recommendation of the State Level Committee was rejected by the State of Tamil Nadu.
Issues
- Whether the Appellant can claim the benefit of exceptions under section 300 of the IPC?
- Whether the Appellant is entitled for the premature release?
Held
- The Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and also held that the Appellant is entitled for premature release.
- In the facts and circumstance of the present case, we find the scenarios put forth by the Appellant not covered under the exceptions enumerated under Section 300 of the IPC. More so, when there was no consent from the persons who were fed and died upon consuming the pesticide administered by the Appellant.
- On the issue of premature release, it is not in dispute that the benefit of premature release to prisoners in case of life convicts is minimum completion of ten years of incarceration as on 25.02.2018, and for such purpose in G.O.(Ms) No. 64 dated 01.02.2018, there is a State Level Committee empowered to make such recommendations. In the present case, the positive recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of the Appellant, has been rejected by the State on the ground that the Appellant had administered poison to murder her two sons to continue her illicit relationship without any hinderance, which act was cruel and brutal in nature.
- Pausing here, the Court would note that the Appellant never tried to murder her sons with a view to continue her illicit relationship. On the contrary, she had tried to commit suicide herself along with her children not with a view to continue her illicit relationship with her paramour but rather, in disappointment and frustration over the quarrel picked up by her paramour. This Court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics and we say no further on this score, bound as we are, by the brooding presence of the rule of law.
- That said, it cannot be simply bracketed as a ‘cruel and brutal’ offence as the Appellant herself was trying to end her life but was prevented by her niece in the nick of time. Moreover, the recommendation of the State Level Committee conveyed by the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons by way of Letter No.4369/PS1/2018 dated 16.02.2018 also notes her undisputed reflective conduct as also the long period of incarceration already undergone.
- Thus, this Court feels that there is no valid reason/justifiable ground for the State not accepting the recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of the Appellant. We are not oblivious to the crime but we are equally not oblivious to the fact that the Appellant (mother) has already suffered at the cruel hands of fate. The reason thereof is an arena this Court would avoid entering.
Relevant Para No.
- 12, 16, 17, 18, 19