NAGARATHINAM versus STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 1124 · Decided: 04-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 1124
1124
NAGARATHINAM
v.
STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2023)
MAY 04, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1125
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-
NAGARATHINAM v. STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF
POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
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 Prades

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.