Mental Disability No Ground to End Child's Life: Madras High Court Affirms Life Sentence for Parents

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has confirmed the life imprisonment imposed on a couple for administering poison to their mentally challenged daughter. 

While acknowledging the emotional and practical difficulties faced by the couple in raising a child with mental retardation, the division bench comprising Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima said such hardship cannot become a justification for ending a life.

The judges observed that the child “did not come into this world on her own” but was born to the accused, and warned that if the law were to permit parents to eliminate children born with disabilities, “no such child would survive in this world”.

Court underlined that it is the bounden duty of parents to care for their child, whether the child is born with mental illness, physical disability or without any disability.

The bench added that no person has the right to take the law into their own hands and extinguish the life of another. Pointing out that many parents continue to make immense sacrifices, and even lay down their lives, for children with disabilities, court said personal distress cannot dilute criminal liability. It held that the trial court was right in convicting the couple for murder.

Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by S. Muneeswaran and Revathi, who had challenged their conviction by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in the 2019 sessions case.

The prosecution case was that the couple’s daughter, Sadhana, born on May 25, 2009, was suffering from mental retardation from birth and was unable to take care of herself. According to the prosecution, on October 1, 2018, the parents took the child to Kathappasamy Temple and administered Tafgor pesticide mixed in a cool drink.

The child was initially treated at the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur, and later shifted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for advanced care. Despite treatment, she died on October 6, 2018.

The FIR was registered under Sections 342 and 307 IPC [corresponding to Sections 127 (2) and 109 of the BNS) and later altered to Sections 342 and 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 (1)] after the child’s death. The trial court, after examining 18 witnesses and documentary evidence, found the couple guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 IPC.

Before the high court, the appellants contended that key eyewitnesses had turned hostile and that the viscera report did not detect poison. They argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that organophosphorus poison was administered and that the bill for purchase of pesticide was not admissible as primary evidence.

However, the high court noted that the child was in the exclusive custody of the parents and that they themselves admitted her to the hospital, informing doctors that they had mixed Tafgor poison in a cool drink and administered it to her. The Accident Register recorded this admission and noted clinical symptoms consistent with organophosphorus poisoning.

Court also relied on the testimony of the fertilizer shop owner, who identified the first accused as the person who purchased Tafgor on the date of occurrence.

On the issue of the negative viscera report, the bench held that such absence is not conclusive proof that death was not due to poisoning. Court observed that poison may not be detected if the victim survives for several days and receives medical treatment, as toxins may be metabolised or eliminated.

The judges emphasised that when a victim is in the exclusive custody of the accused, it is their duty to explain the circumstances leading to death. The appellants failed to offer any plausible explanation.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the life imprisonment imposed on the couple was upheld.

Case Title: S.Muneeswaran and Another vs. State

Judgment Date: February 13, 2026

Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima