It is entirely in order that while taking a most pragmatic stand, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Muneeswaran Vs State of Tamil Nadu in Crl.A(MD)No.76 of 2023 that was reserved on 02.02.2026 and then finally pronounced on 13.02.2026 has upheld the conviction and life sentence of parents who had killed their 9-year-old daughter suffering from a mental disorder thus displaying complete zero tolerance for such reprehensible acts of crime. It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Hon’ble Ms Justice R Poornima plainly said that if law were to permit parents to eliminate children born with mental illness no such child would remain live. We thus see that the Madurai Bench made it indubitably clear that a child’s birth creates an inescapable legal and moral responsibility on the parents. It also explicitly rejected any justification that was based on hardship.
It must be borne in mind that the Division Bench before stating anything else points out in the prayer that, “Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the lower Court and set aside the Judgment passed by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in S.C.No.17 of 2019, dated 06.08.2022 by allowing this appeal.”
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice R Poornima for a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.17 of 2019, dated 06.08.2022, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, “The case of the prosecution is that the accused are husband and wife. They gave birth to a female child on 25.05.2009 and named her Sadhana. From the date of her birth, the child was suffering from a mental disorder, and as such, she was unable to maintain herself. The second accused resigned from her position as a professor at a private college in order to look after her daughter. However, she was unable to maintain the child, and the family suffered from mental distress and lack of peace of mind. Consequently, they decided to murder their mentally disordered child. While being so, on 01.10.2018, at about 6.00 p.m., they went to Kathappasamy Temple and, behind the temple, administered Tafgor to the deceased. On hearing the noise raised by the deceased, members of the public intervened and prevented the accused from administering further poison. Immediately thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur, for treatment. Subsequently, she was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for higher medical care. However, on 06.10.2018, at about 9.00 a.m., she died. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered by the Malli Police Station, Virudhunagar District in Cr.No.134 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 307 of IPC and thereafter, the charges were altered into Sections 342 and 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 pointing out that, “On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found both the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 302 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC; they were sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 12 noting that, “It is not the case of the defence that any third party administered poison to the child. On the contrary, it is an admitted fact that the child was administered poison while in the custody of the accused parents only.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench lays bare in para 13 observing that, “This fact is further corroborated by P.W.13, the owner of the fertilizer shop from which the accused had bought the poison in question. He categorically deposed that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 01.10.2018, A1 purchased 500 ml of “Tafgor” fertilizer from his shop for a sum of Rs. 243/-, and the bill issued to him was marked as Ex.P3. P.W.13 clearly identified A1 in the Court as the person who purchased the poison.”
What’s more, the Division Bench then points out in para 14 that, “P.W.14, Dr.Sangeeth, who treated the child, elaborately described the treatment administered. He stated that the poison had spread throughout the body, causing severe respiratory distress. The child was provided with artificial respiration, administered anti-poison medication, and treated for low blood pressure, but despite medical intervention, the blood pressure did not improve. Subsequently, renal function deteriorated, and the child ultimately died on 06.10.2018 at 09:15 hours. The evidence of P.W.15 supports the testimony of P.W.14.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench notes in para 21 that, “The consistent testimony of P.W.14 and P.W.15, the admission made by A2 at the time of hospital admission, and the evidence of P.W.13, who sold the poison to A1, collectively prove that the child had consumed poison.”
It is also worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 22 that, “The child was in the exclusive custody of her parents, who themselves admitted the child to the hospital stating that they administered poison to her. The parents are A1 and A2 and they neither lodged any complaint nor claimed that the poisoning was accidental or caused by a third party. When a person is in the exclusive custody of the accused, it is their legal duty to explain the circumstances leading to the death. The accused have failed to offer any plausible explanation.”
Quite rationally, the Division Bench points out in para 23 holding that, “Accordingly, this Court holds that the absence of poison in the viscera report does not weaken the prosecution case. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that A1 purchased the poison from P.W.13, and A2 admitted before P.W.12 that both A1 and A2 had administered the poison to their daughter. Further, both the accused themselves informed the Doctor that poison had been administered to their child.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench points out in para 24 that, “Though the prosecution examined several eyewitnesses to prove the offence, many of them turned hostile. However, the medical evidence clearly proves that the child died due to poisoning administered by the accused.”
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 25 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “While this Court sympathizes with the accused parents for the difficulties they faced in bringing up the child, 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. If the law permits the parents to eliminate the children born with mental retardation, no such child would survive in this world. 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.”
Most rationally, the Division Bench while striking the right balance propounds in para 26 directing and holding that, “No one has the right to take the law into their own hands and extinguish the life of another person. Even today, many parents make immense sacrifices, and even lay down their lives, for children born with disabilities. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the offence of murder. We find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The Criminal Appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.”
Finally and resultantly, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 27 that, “In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment made in S.C.No.17 of 2019, dated 06.08.2022, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, is hereby confirmed.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has made it indubitably clear that the parents who killed their 9-year-old minor daughter who was suffering from mental disorder would be liable to punishment and upheld the life term and conviction of parents by the Trial Court. Of course, this notable judgment has sent a very loud and clear message to all parents that a child’s birth creates an inescapable legal and moral responsibility on the parents from which they cannot run away by citing mental disorder or on some other pretext! It has also expressly rejected any justification based on hardship. No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi