Supreme Court Orders Release of Mother in Suicide Pact Case: Nagarathinam vs. State (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 4, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 415

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

Can a mother who attempts suicide after administering poison to her children, resulting in their death, be convicted of murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex issue in the case of Nagarathinam vs. State. The court examined whether the mother’s actions constituted murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC, and also considered if she was eligible for premature release.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, delivered the judgment. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah authored the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Nagarathinam, had an affair with a man named Suresh, who frequently threatened her. This led her to decide to commit suicide along with her two children, twins named Ramar and Laxmanan. She purchased pesticides and administered poison to her children. She then attempted to consume the poison herself, but her niece intervened. Unfortunately, the two children died, leading to the filing of FIR No. 115 of 2003 on March 28, 2003, at Sempatti Police Station, under Section 302 of the IPC.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 309 of the IPC, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for murder, and one year of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000 for attempting suicide. In appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Madras partly allowed the plea, acquitting her under Section 309 of the IPC but upholding the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant, having served nearly 20 years, applied for premature release, which was rejected by the State of Tamil Nadu.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 299, IPC: Defines culpable homicide as causing death 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 the act is likely to cause death.
• Section 300, IPC: Defines murder as culpable homicide with specific intentions or knowledge, subject to certain exceptions.
• Section 302, IPC: Specifies the punishment for murder, which includes death or life imprisonment and a fine.
• Section 304, IPC: Specifies the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which includes life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, and a fine.

The court quoted the sections verbatim:

“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.”

“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.”

“302. Punishment for murder – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.”

“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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• 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 as a mother attempting family suicide, her case should be considered an extenuating circumstance under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• She argued that if the mother survives and the children die, it should be punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
• She relied on the decisions in Guruswami Pillai v State, 1991 (1) MWN (Cr.) 153 and Suyambukkani v State, 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 481.
• Alternatively, she sought the benefit of G.O.(Ms) No. 64 of the Home (Prison-IV) Department dated 01.02.2018, given her long incarceration and the State Level Committee’s recommendation for her release.

Respondent-State’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the appellant’s actions were cruel and brutal, as she administered poison to young children, leading to their death.
• The State contended that the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
• The State opposed the premature release of the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the appellant’s actions fall under the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, specifically Exception 1 related to grave and sudden provocation.
2. Whether the appellant’s case should be considered under Section 304 Part I of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) instead of Section 302 of the IPC (murder).
3. Whether the State was justified in rejecting the recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The following cases were considered by the Court:

The following legal provisions were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the cases of Guruswami Pillai v State, 1991 (1) MWN (Cr.) 153 and Suyambukkani v State, 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 481, stating that they turned on their own specific facts.
• The Court considered State of Andhra Pradesh v Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382 and State of Uttarakhand v Sachendra Singh Rawat, (2022) 4 SCC 227, but found that they did not benefit the appellant’s case for converting the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was influenced by several factors:

• The appellant was under tremendous mental stress when she administered poison to her children.
• The appellant did not attempt to murder her children to continue her illicit relationship, but rather out of disappointment and frustration with her paramour.
• The appellant herself attempted suicide and was only saved by her niece.
• The State Level Committee had recommended her premature release, acknowledging her positive conduct and long incarceration.

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual circumstances of the case than by the legal provisions alone. The court considered the mental state of the appellant, her attempt to commit suicide, and the recommendation of the State Level Committee.

Logical Reasoning:

The court did not find any alternative interpretations that would have changed the outcome of the case regarding the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. However, the court did find that the State was not justified in rejecting the recommendation for premature release.

The Supreme Court’s decision was to uphold the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, but to set aside the State’s order rejecting the premature release of the appellant. The court directed the appellant to be released forthwith.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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.”

There was no minority opinion in this case; both judges concurred with the final decision.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, but set aside the State’s order rejecting the premature release of the appellant. The court reasoned that while the appellant’s actions were indeed criminal, her mental state, suicide attempt, and the State Level Committee’s recommendation for her release were compelling factors that warranted her immediate release.

Key Takeaways

• A mother who administers poison to her children, resulting in their death, can be convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC if her actions do not fall under the exceptions provided in Section 300 of the IPC.
• The court will consider the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the mental state of the accused, when determining the appropriate conviction.
• Even if the accused attempts suicide along with the victims, it does not automatically qualify the case for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
• Recommendations of the State Level Committee for premature release of prisoners should be given due consideration, and the State should have valid reasons for rejecting such recommendations.
• The court will not simply bracket a case as ‘cruel and brutal’ if the accused also attempted suicide along with the victims.

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 court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, it emphasized that the State should not reject the recommendation for premature release without valid reasons, especially when the convict has served a long period of incarceration and has shown positive conduct. This case does not change the previous positions of law but reinforces the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the mental state of the accused, and the recommendations of the State Level Committee for premature release.

Conclusion

In the case of Nagarathinam vs. State, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a mother under Section 302 of the IPC for administering poison to her children, resulting in their death. However, the court also set aside the State’s order rejecting her premature release. The court emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances of the case, including the mental state of the accused, and the recommendations of the State Level Committee for premature release. The court ordered the immediate release of the appellant.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Culpable Homicide
• Murder
• Premature Release
• Criminal Law
• Suicide Pact

FAQ

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

A: The main issue was whether a mother who administered poison to her children, resulting in their death, should be convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC, and whether she should be granted premature release.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC but set aside the State’s order rejecting the premature release of the appellant. The court ordered her immediate release.

Q: What factors did the Supreme Court consider?

A: The Supreme Court considered the mental state of the appellant, her attempt to commit suicide, the fact that she did not intend to murder her children to continue her illicit relationship, and the recommendation of the State Level Committee for her release.

Q: What is Section 302 of the IPC?

A: Section 302 of the IPC specifies the punishment for murder, which includes death or life imprisonment and a fine.

Q: What is Section 304 of the IPC?

A: Section 304 of the IPC specifies the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which includes life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, and a fine.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the mental state of the accused, and the recommendations of the State Level Committee for premature release. It also emphasizes that the State should have valid reasons for rejecting such recommendations.

Q: Can a person be convicted of murder even if they attempted suicide along with the victims?

A: Yes, a person can be convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC if their actions do not fall under the exceptions provided in Section 300 of the IPC, even if they also attempted suicide.