Published on :
The Madras High Court recently commuted the life sentence awarded to a woman, convicted by a local Mahila court for killing her 13-year-old daughter by pouring kerosene over her and setting her afire, while the minor girl was asleep [Rajeshwari v State].
In a judgement passed on January 6, Justice PN Prakash (now retired) and Justice G Jayachandran of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court reduced the appellant Rajeshwari’s life term to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
The order was passed after the Court reached the conclusion that the woman had no intention to kill her daughter.
It, therefore, set aside the trial court order convicting her for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and instead ruled that she could be convicted only for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(1) of IPC.
The bench noted that Rajeshwari had been angry with her daughter Mariselvi since, the latter had run away from her hostel and come home saying she had no interest in her studies. Rajeshwari was enraged and on June 12, 2012, a day after the deceased Mariselvi came home, she set her afire.
The victim had succumbed to her injuries four months after the incident.
Rajeshwari was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment by the local court in 2019.
Rajeshwari, however, filed an appeal before the High Court challenging her conviction and the sentence.
The High Court bench said that the question before the court was to ascertain if in setting her afire, Rajeshwari had the intention to kill her daughter?
The Court said that going by the evidence in case, it believed that Rajeshwari’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was “not sustainable.”
It said that that instead, she could only be convicted under Section 304(1) of the IPC for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
“We have two dying declarations in this case viz., the complaint that was given by Mariselvi to the Sub-Inspector of Police, and the one given by her to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti. In both the dying declarations, she has stated that since she was not properly studying, her mother was angry with her and.when she returned home from hostel, her mother questioned her and thereafter, poured kerosene and set fire. But however, the question is
whether the appellant had intention to commit the murder of her daughter?” the Court said.
It noted that Mariselvi had been rushed to the hospital by her father and was treated for four months for the 50 percent burn injuries that she had sustained in the incident. During these four months, she was discharged from the hospital twice on the ground that her burns were not healing, and she was readmitted.
While at the hospital, Mariselvi gave her statement to the police and the magistrate narrating the entire incident.
She succumbed to her injuries on October 1, 2012.
In its judgement, the High Court said that considering that Mariselvi’s father too had confirmed that she was “not interested in studies,” that she had been in and out of the hospital several times, and that Rajeshwari had been angry at the time of the incident, it was a case of 304 (1) of the IPC and not a murder case.
“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,” the high court said.
Advocates R Manickaraj and M Jegadeesh Pandian appeared for the Appellant Rajeshwari.
Additional Public Prosecutor S Ravi appeared for the respondent State.
