You are currently viewing <strong>๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐—›๐—– ๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—Ÿ๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ฒ ๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—š๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ช๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป, ๐—ช๐—ต๐—ผ ๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐˜ ๐—”๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜‡๐—ฒ ๐—›๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐— ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐——๐—ฎ๐˜‚๐—ด๐—ต๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ, ๐˜๐—ผ ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ ๐—ฌ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜€ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น</strong><br>

๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐—›๐—– ๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—Ÿ๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ฒ ๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—š๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ช๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป, ๐—ช๐—ต๐—ผ ๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐˜ ๐—”๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜‡๐—ฒ ๐—›๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐— ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐——๐—ฎ๐˜‚๐—ด๐—ต๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ, ๐˜๐—ผ ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ ๐—ฌ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜€ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น

The Madras High Court recently commuted the life sentence awarded to a woman who had been convicted for setting her 13-year-old daughter on fire. Her life sentence was reduced to 10 years in jail.

The bench of Justices PN Prakash (now retired) and G Jayachandran held that the womanโ€™s conviction for the offence under section 302 of IPC could not sustain and instead she could be held guilty only under section 304(1).

The division bench said,  “from the facts of the case, it appeared that the incident happened as a result of a quarrel between the mother and the daughter over the latterโ€™s lack of interest in studies and it was only after four months of the incident that the case was altered to one under section 302 of IPC when the daughter succumbed to her burn injuries.”

What happened in this case was that the 13-year-old victim was apparently not good at studies. Consequently, her parents admitted her to the Government-aided Residential School in Kovilpatti. However, only after eight days, the girl escaped from the hostel and returned home at midnight. This triggered a quarrel the next day between the victim and her mother who angrily threw kerosene on the girl and set her on fire.

On hearing the girl shouting, her father, who was asleep during the quarrel, woke up and immediately took the victim to a govt. hospital, Kovilpatti. As per the wound certificate, the victim had suffered 50% burns.

The statement of the victim was then recorded, and based on that a case was registered under section 307 of IPC against her mother. One dying declaration of the victim was also recorded at that time.

The victim was given medical treatment for over four months during which she had been discharged and readmitted multiple times as her burns were not healing. Eventually, she succumbed to the injuries.

The case was altered from one under section 307 of IPC to section 302. The trial court convicted the mother for the offence under section 302 and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000.

The mother, thereafter, challenged her conviction under section 302 before the high court. The HC considered the question as to whether the mother had the intention to commit the murder of her daughter. The court ruled in negation and, therefore, allowed the appeal.


Accordingly, the high court convicted the mother under section 304(1) of IPC and sentenced her to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 5,000.

Leave a Reply