Supreme Court Orders Release of Mother Convicted of Murdering Children: Nagarathinam vs. State (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 4, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 4952

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Can a mother, who, in a state of extreme mental distress, kills her children and attempts suicide, be convicted for murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question, examining the nuances of culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case of Nagarathinam vs. State involved a mother who poisoned her two children and then attempted to take her own life. The Supreme Court considered whether her actions constituted murder under Section 302 of the IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, and also reviewed the denial of her premature release. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with the opinion authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Case Background

The appellant, Nagarathinam, was in a relationship with one Suresh, who frequently threatened her. This led her to decide to commit suicide along with her two children. She purchased pesticides and administered poison to her twin sons, Ramar and Laxmanan. Subsequently, when she attempted to consume the poison herself, her niece intervened and stopped her. Unfortunately, the two children were declared dead upon arrival at the hospital. This resulted in the filing of FIR No. 115 of 2003 dated 28.03.2003 at Sempatti Police Station under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, convicted Nagarathinam under Sections 302 and 309 of the IPC on 10.01.2005, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine for murder, and simple imprisonment for one year and a fine for attempting suicide. Nagarathinam appealed to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which partly allowed her plea on 05.08.2019, acquitting her under Section 309 of the IPC but upholding the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. After serving almost 20 years, Nagarathinam applied for premature release, which was rejected by the State of Tamil Nadu on 24.09.2019. The State Level Committee had recommended her release on 16.02.2018, but the State rejected this recommendation due to the “cruel and brutal nature” of her crime. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 299: “Culpable homicide- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.” This section defines culpable homicide, which is the act of causing death with the intention, knowledge, or likelihood of causing death.
• Section 300: “Murder- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or – Secondly – If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or – Thirdly – If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or – Fourthly – If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.” This section defines murder, specifying the conditions under which culpable homicide becomes murder, including intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. It also includes exceptions where culpable homicide is not considered murder.
• Exception 1 to Section 300: “Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.” This exception states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed under grave and sudden provocation.
• Section 302: “Punishment for murder – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.” This section prescribes the punishment for the offense of murder.
• Section 304: “Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” This section provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing between acts done with intention and those done with knowledge.

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellant:

• The appellant argued that her actions were a result of sudden provocation, falling under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. She contended that her decision to commit suicide along with her children was an extenuating circumstance.
• She submitted that if the mother survives and the children die in a family suicide attempt, the offense should be punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), not Section 302 (murder).
• The appellant relied on the Madras High Court decisions in Guruswami Pillai v State, 1991 (1) MWN (Cr.) 153 and Suyambukkani v State, 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 481, where similar cases of family suicide attempts were treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• In the alternative, the appellant argued for the benefit of G.O.(Ms) No. 64 of the Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 01.02.2018, citing her long incarceration and the State Level Committee’s recommendation for her release. She argued that the State’s rejection of her release was erroneous.

Submissions by the Respondent-State:

• The State argued that the appellant’s actions were cruel and brutal because she administered poison to young children, leading to their deaths.
• The State contended that both the Trial Court and the High Court had carefully considered all aspects of the matter and rightly upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
• The State argued that the premature release of the appellant was rightly refused due to the severity of the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the appellant’s actions fall under the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, specifically under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
• Whether the appellant is entitled to premature release based on the State Level Committee’s recommendation and her long period of incarceration.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Madras High Court decisions in Guruswami Pillai v State, 1991 (1) MWN (Cr.) 153 and Suyambukkani v State, 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 481 were distinguished by the Court on the basis of their specific facts. The Court noted that in those cases, there were specific circumstances such as mental status, social status, and financial status that led the High Court to convert the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
• The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382 was considered, but the Court found that it did not benefit the appellant.
• The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttarakhand v Sachendra Singh Rawat, (2022) 4 SCC 227 was also factored in, but it did not change the Court’s view.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Mental State of the Appellant: The Court acknowledged that the appellant was under tremendous mental stress when she administered poison to her children. However, this was not deemed sufficient to bring her case under the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Absence of Consent: The Court emphasized that the children did not consent to consuming the poison, which was a critical factor in not reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide.
• State Level Committee Recommendation: The Court gave significant weight to the State Level Committee’s recommendation for the appellant’s premature release, noting her positive conduct and long period of incarceration.
• Nature of the Offence: The Court did not consider the offense to be “cruel and brutal” in the context of the appellant’s suicide attempt. The court noted that she was not trying to murder her sons to continue her illicit relationship, but rather, in disappointment and frustration over the quarrel with her paramour.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not accept the argument that the appellant’s actions should be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court reasoned that the act of administering poison to the children was done with the intention of causing death, and there was no consent from the children. The court also noted that the circumstances did not fall under the exceptions provided under Section 300 of the IPC. However, the Court noted that the appellant was under mental stress, and the act was not done to continue her illicit relationship. The Court also considered the State Level Committee’s recommendation for her release, and the fact that she had already served a long period of incarceration. The Court set aside the State’s order rejecting her premature release.

“However, despite the best efforts of learned senior counsel for the Appellant, it is difficult to grant the benefit of bringing the case under the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”

“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.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• A mother who kills her children and attempts suicide due to mental stress may be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the IPC if the circumstances do not fall under the exceptions enumerated under Section 300 of the IPC, and if there is no consent from the deceased.
• The recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of a prisoner is given significant weight by the Supreme Court, especially when the prisoner has shown positive conduct and has served a long period of incarceration.
• The Court may consider the circumstances of the offense, including the mental state of the offender, but this will not always lead to a reduction in the charge from murder to culpable homicide.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics, and it is bound by the rule of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the Supreme Court did not disturb the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, it gave importance to the recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of a prisoner. The Supreme Court also noted the mental stress of the appellant and the fact that she had tried to commit suicide, and that the act was not done to continue her illicit relationship. This case highlights that the courts will consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case while deciding on issues of conviction and premature release. There is no change in the previous position of law with respect to Section 302 of the IPC.

Conclusion

In the case of Nagarathinam vs. State, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of her two children. However, the Court set aside the State of Tamil Nadu’s order rejecting her premature release, directing her immediate release. The Court emphasized the importance of the State Level Committee’s recommendations and the appellant’s long incarceration and reflective conduct. This judgment underscores the complexities of cases involving family suicide attempts and the nuances of culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Culpable Homicide

Child Category: Murder

Child Category: Premature Release

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Nagarathinam vs. State case?

A: The main issue was whether a mother who killed her children and attempted suicide due to mental stress should be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the IPC or for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, and whether she should be granted premature release.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the conviction?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC for murder, stating that the circumstances did not fall under the exceptions enumerated under Section 300 of the IPC and that the children did not consent to being poisoned.

Q: Did the Supreme Court grant premature release to the appellant?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court set aside the State’s order rejecting her premature release and ordered her immediate release, citing the State Level Committee’s recommendation, her positive conduct, and long period of incarceration.

Q: What is the difference between Section 302 and Section 304 of the IPC?

A: Section 302 of the IPC deals with the punishment for murder, while Section 304 deals with the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The key difference lies in the intention and knowledge of the offender. Murder involves an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, while culpable homicide not amounting to murder may not have the same level of intent or knowledge.

Q: What is the significance of the State Level Committee’s recommendation in this case?

A: The State Level Committee’s recommendation for premature release was given significant weight by the Supreme Court, highlighting the importance of such committees in the process of considering the release of prisoners.