Hardship Of Raising A Child With Mental Disability No Justification For Taking Her Life, Parental Duty Remains Absolute: Madras High Court Upholds Parents' Conviction For Poisoning Their Daughter
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Division Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima, recently upheld the life imprisonment sentence awarded to a husband and wife convicted of murdering their young daughter, who had been diagnosed with a mental disorder since birth. The couple had deliberately administered an organophosphorus pesticide to the child, who subsequently died following hospitalisation. The Court, while acknowledging the hardships the parents endured in caring for a child with disabilities, held that parental responsibility towards a child remains unconditional, regardless of the child's physical or mental condition. The Court further observed that no individual is entitled to end another person's life, however difficult the circumstances, and found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's findings or the conviction recorded under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants, husband and wife, for offences under Sections 342 and 302 of the IPC. The prosecution case was that their minor daughter, who was mentally disabled and unable to maintain herself, was administered “Tafgor” pesticide mixed in a cool drink near a temple. Members of the public intervened, and the child was first treated at a Government Hospital and later referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. She died several days later.
An FIR was registered initially under Sections 342 and 307 IPC and later altered to Sections 342 and 302 IPC. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and marked documentary exhibits including the Accident Register, purchase bill of pesticide, viscera report, and medical records. The defence did not examine witnesses. The appellants contended that eyewitnesses had turned hostile, the viscera report detected no poison, and the purchase bill was inadmissible secondary evidence. The prosecution relied on medical evidence, hospital records, and the alleged admission made by the mother at the time of admission to establish administration of poison.
The Court observed that “The deceased child was in the exclusive custody of her parents, namely, A1-Muneeswaran and A2-Revathi.” It further recorded that “It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses, including P.W.10, a relative of the accused, and P.W.15, Dr.Alageswari, who treated the child, that the child was a mentally retarded child.”
With regard to hospital admission, the Court stated that “At the time of admission, the accused informed the Doctor that they had mixed 100 ml. of Tafgor fertilizer in a cool drink and administered it to the child at Kathappasamy Temple.” The Accident Register noted that “the child was semi-conscious with constricted pupils, which is consistent with organophosphorus poisoning.”
Referring to the post-mortem opinion, the Court reproduced: “No definite opinion can be given regarding the cause of death, however, the history of the case, hospital records and post-mortem findings are consistent with death due to poisoning, the nature of which could not be detected chemically.”
On the effect of the negative viscera report, the Court recorded: “Thus, the absence of detection of poison in the viscera report alone need not be treated as a conclusive proof of the fact that the victim has not died of poison.” It also quoted: “This circumstance would not, in our opinion, militate against the conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to poisoning.”
The Bench stated that “In such circumstances, the Court must place reliance on the clinical diagnosis and testimony of the Doctors who treated the victim while alive, rather than solely on post-mortem chemical analysis.” It further observed that “It is not the case of the defence that any third party administered poison to the child.”
The Court recorded that “When a person is in the exclusive custody of the accused, it is their legal duty to explain the circumstances leading to the death.” It added that “The accused have failed to offer any plausible explanation.”
Also Read: Places Of Worship Act Cannot Shield Encroachments By Temple On Government Land: Madras High Court
While addressing the broader issue, the Court stated: “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.”
The Court ordered: “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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Jegadeesh Pandian
For the Respondents: Mr. R. M. Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: S. Muneeswaran & Another v. State
Neutral Citation: 2026: MHC:518
Case Number: Crl.A(MD)No.76 of 2023
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima
