The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday upheld the conviction and life sentence of parents who had killed their 9-year old daughter suffering from a mental disorder [Muneeswaran Vs State of Tamil Nadu].
A Division Bench of Justices GK Ilanthiraiyan and R Poornima held that if law were to permit parents to eliminate children born with mental no such child would remain alive.
The Court said that it is the bounden duty of parents to take care of their child, even if they are born with mental illness or physical disability.
“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 stated.
Personal distress cannot override criminal law and nobody can take law into their own hands, the Court made it clear.
“No one has the right to take the law into their own hands and extinguish the life of another person.”
Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by S Muneeswaran and Revathi and confirmed their conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court.
"If the law permits the parents to eliminate the children born with mental retardation, no such child would survive in this world," the Bench said.
while dismissing the criminal appeal filed by S Muneeswaran and Revathi and confirming the judgment of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, which had convicted them under Sections 342 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the couple’s daughter, born in 2009, was suffering from mental retardation and required constant care.
On October 1, 2018, the parents took her to Kathappasamy Temple in Virudhunagar district and administered “Tafgor” fertilizer (Dimethoate, an organophosphorus insecticide) mixed in a cool drink.
Members of the public intervened and the child was rushed to hospital but she died on October 6, 2018 after undergoing treatment.
They were charged with offences under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The trial Court had sentenced the couple to life imprisonment for the offence of murder and to a lesser term for the offence of wrongful confinement.
Before the High Court, the two convicts argued that eyewitnesses had turned hostile, the viscera report did not detect poison, and the prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence.
They also questioned the admissibility of the bill allegedly showing purchase of the pesticide.
The Court rejected these submissions. It noted that at the time of admission of the child to the hospital, the parents themselves informed the doctor that they had mixed Tafgor poison in a cool drink and administered it to the child.
The accident register at the hospital also recorded that the child was semi-conscious with constricted pupils, consistent with organophosphorus poisoning.
"It is a settled principle of law that a negative viscera report is not automatically fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the victim had undergone prolonged medical treatment. In cases where the victim survives for several days after consuming poison and receives treatment, the poison may be metabolized or eliminated from the body before death," the Bench said.
It also noted that the child was in the exclusive custody of her parents.
The fertilizer shop owner also testified that the first accused had purchased 500 ml of Tafgor on the date of occurrence. He also identified the accused in court.
Thus, it upheld the order of the trial court.
The Court made it clear that a child’s birth creates an inescapable legal and moral responsibility on the parents.
The Court expressly rejected any justification based on hardship.
“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," the Bench underscored.
The appellants were represented by advocate Jegadeesh Pandian.
State was represented by Advocate RN Anbunithi.
[Read Judgment]