The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused parents challenging their conviction for offenses under Sections 342 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IP), observing that the absence of poison in the viscera report does not weaken the prosecution case when supported by the medical and circumstantial evidence.
The case arose from the judgment of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, which had convicted the appellants. The prosecution case was that the accused husband and wife administered Tafgor pesticide in a cool drink to their mentally disordered daughter behind Kathappasamy Temple. The child was admitted to the hospital and later referred for higher medical care. Based on the information received, an FIR was registered, and charges were altered from Sections 342 and 307 of the IPC to Sections 342 and 302 of the IPC.
Before the High Court, the appellants submitted that the eyewitnesses turned hostile and no poison was detected in the Viscera Report. Whereas the state has argued that medical records, the accident register, and the testimony of doctors clearly established organophosphorus poisoning.
After hearing both sides, the bench of JusticeG.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima noted that the child was in the exclusive custody of the accused, and at the time of the admission at the hospital, it was recorded that the parents themselves disclosed administering Tafgor poison. The accident register further shows symptoms consistent with organophosphorus poisoning.
Further, dealing with the negative Viscera report, the court observed that non-detection of poison after prolonged medical treatment is not uncommon and is not conclusive of absence of poisoning, and the bench has held that clinical diagnosis and testimony of the doctors who treated the victim while alive must be relied upon.
Accordingly, the court has dismissed the criminal appeal upon finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment.
Appearance:
Advocate M. Jegadeesh Pandian for Appellant
Additional Public Prosecutor R. M. Anbunithi, for Respondent
