In a recent order dated January 06, 2023, the Madras High Court overturned the life sentence imposed on a mother for the crime of endangering the life of her minor daughter and causing her death by setting her on fire. The bench, consisting of Justice PN Prakash (now retired) and Justice G Jayachandran, determined that the mother did not have the intent to murder her daughter, and as such, the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was modified to Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case:
On June 6, 2012, 13-year-old Mariselvi was killed by her mother Rajeshwari. The incident occurred when Mariselvi, a student at a government-aided residential school in Kovilpatti, returned home during midnight on June 11, 2012, after escaping from the hostel without informing the wardens. This led to a heated argument between the mother and daughter, during which Rajeshwari poured kerosene on Mariselvi and set her on fire. Mariselvi was rushed to a government hospital where she received treatment for her injuries, which consisted of 50% burns. Despite receiving treatment for over four months, Mariselvi’s burns failed to heal and she passed away in October 2012.
Trial Court
The appellant mother, Rajeshwari, was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the trial court. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. The trial court convicted Rajeshwari and sentenced her to life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs 5,000 and an additional 6 months rigorous imprisonment in default of the fine. The conviction was subsequently appealed in the High Court.
Madras High Court
The appellant, Rajeshwari, filed an appeal to the Madras High Court challenging the conviction and sentence handed down by the trial court. The primary issue before the Madras High Court was to determine whether the evidence and testimony presented in the case supported the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the corresponding sentence of life imprisonment.
Whether the appellant was responsible for the burn injuries suffered by Mariselvi?
The court thoroughly reviewed and evaluated the evidence and witness statements on record and made the following observations in its analysis.
The evidence shows that the deceased was not interested in studying and had left the residential school on the night of 11.06.2012 without informing anyone and had come home in the midnight. On the next day, the appellant being the mother of the deceased was very upset that her daughter was not going to school.
Therefore, a quarrel appears to have endured between the appellant and the deceased in which, the appellant is said to have thrown kerosene on her and set fire.
Adding further, the court noted:
It may be relevant to state that initially, the case was registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC and only after four months, when Mariselvi succumbed to injuries, the case was altered to one under Section 302 IPC.
Records show that Mariselvi who received the burn injuries got admitted in the hospital on 12.06.2012 and was discharged from the hospital. On 10.07.2012 again, she was admitted on 25.07.2012 and discharged on 27.08.2012 for over three times as stated by us above was in and out of the hospital and finally got admitted on 04.09.2012.
She finally succumbed to injuries in the hospital only on 01.10.2012.
Based on the aforementioned evidence and facts presented, the High Court determined that the conviction under Section 302 for murder could not be sustained, and instead, the conviction should be under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench stated,
Taking all these facts into consideration, we afraid that we cannot sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and instead, the conviction can be one under Section 304(1) IPC.
As a result of the court’s analysis, the conviction under Section 302 was altered to Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court imposed a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 on the appellant. In conclusion, the Madras High Court stated,
The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 304(1) IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to under go 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
The fine amount already paid for the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC would hold good for this too. The appellant is directed to immediately secure the appellant and produce her before the trial Court and on such production, she shall be remanded to custody for undergoing the remaining part of sentence after set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.