Premature Release – Appellant had an affair with ‘S’, who threatened her often – Appellant took decision to commit suicide along with her children – Appellant survived – Children died – Trial Court convicted appellant u/ss. 302 and 309 IPC – High Court partly allowed appeal, acquitted appellant u/s. 309 and upheld the conviction u/s. 302 IPC – After undergoing imprisonment for 20 years, appellant applied for premature release – However, same was rejected by the State – Held: Appellant was in tremendous mental stress when she administered poison to her children – Application for premature release was rejected by the State on the ground that the appellant had administered poison to murder her two sons to continue her illicit relationship without any hinderance, which act was cruel and brutal in nature – However, the Court would note that the appellant never tried to murder her sons with a view to continue her illicit relationship – On the contrary, she had tried to commit suicide herself along with her children not with a view to continue her illicit relationship with her paramour but rather, in disappointment and frustration over the quarrel picked up by her paramour – Appellant herself was trying to end her life but was prevented by her niece in the nick of time – 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 – Thus, order of the State set aside – Appellant entitled to the benefit of premature release – Appellant directed to be released – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 309.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On the issue of premature release, it is not in dispute that the benefit of premature release to prisoners in case of life convicts is minimum completion of ten years of incarceration as on 25.02.2018, and for such purpose in G.O.(Ms) No. 64 dated 01.02.2018, there is a State Level Committee empowered to make such recommendations. In the present case, the positive recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of the Appellant, has been rejected by the State on the ground that the Appellant had administered poison to murder her two sons to continue her illicit relationship without any hinderance, which act was cruel and brutal in nature. [Para 16][1135-A-B]
2. Pausing here, the Court would note that the Appellant never tried to murder her sons with a view to continue her illicit relationship. On the contrary, she had tried to commit suicide herself along with her children not with a view to continue her illicit relationship with her paramour but rather, in disappointment and frustration over the quarrel picked up by her paramour. This Court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics and cannot say further on this score, as is bound, by the brooding presence of the rule of law. [Para 17][1135-C-D]
3. 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. Moreover, the recommendation of the State Level Committee conveyed by the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Prisons by way of Letter No.4369/PS1/2018 dated 16.02.2018 also notes her undisputed reflective conduct as also the long period of incarceration already undergone. [Para 18][1135-E]
4. 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. The Court is not oblivious to the crime and to the fact that the Appellant (mother) has already suffered at the cruel hands of fate. The reason thereof is an arena this Court would avoid entering. [Para 19][1135-F]
5. The order of the State of Tamil Nadu as contained in G.O. (D) No. 1127 dated 24.09.2019 issued by the Home (Prison-IV) Department, under the signature of Additional Chief Secretary to Government, rejecting the prayer for premature release of the Appellant, is set aside. [Para 20][1135-G-H] State of Andhra Pradesh v Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382 : [1977] 1 SCR 601; State of
Uttarakhand v Sachendra Singh Rawat, (2022) 4 SCC
227 – referred to.
Guruswami Pillai v State, 1991 (1) MWN (Cr.) 153; Suyambukkani v State, 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 481 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.