Negative Viscera Report Not Automatically Fatal To Case: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction Of Parents For Poisoning Mentally Disordered Child

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Fast Track Mahila Court for offences under the Penal Code arising out of the death of a minor girl allegedly poisoned by her parents.

A Division Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima, while stating that “negative viscera report is not automatically fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the victim had undergone prolonged medical treatment”, further held that “…the evidence on record conclusively establishes that… the accused, …purchased and …administered the poison to their daughter.”

Background

According to the prosecution, the accused were the parents of a girl suffering from a mental disorder since birth, requiring constant care.

They allegedly decided to kill the child and administered pesticide mixed in a drink at a temple, after which bystanders intervened, and the child was taken to the hospital for treatment.

She was treated first locally and later referred to a higher medical facility, but died several days later.

The trial court convicted both parents of wrongful confinement and murder, sentencing them to imprisonment and fines, which they challenged on appeal.

Court’s Observations

The Court first noted that the child was in the exclusive custody of her parents at all relevant times and that even prosecution witnesses and doctors confirmed her mental condition.

At hospital admission, the parents themselves informed the doctor that they had mixed poison in a drink and administered it to the child, which was recorded in the Accident Register.

Medical witnesses described clinical signs consistent with organophosphorus poisoning, including constricted pupils and respiratory distress, and detailed the treatment administered before death.

The Court considered this clinical evidence significant because it reflected the condition of the victim while alive rather than post-mortem speculation.

The Court addressed the defence argument regarding the viscera report, which did not detect poison. The post-mortem doctor had stated: “No definite opinion can be given regarding the cause of death; however, the history of the case, hospital records and post-mortem findings are consistent with death due to poisoning, the nature of which could not be detected chemically.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Bench reiterated that “a negative viscera report is not automatically fatal to the prosecution case,” especially where the victim survived for days and received treatment, since poison may be metabolised or eliminated from the body or may be difficult to detect through routine forensic screening.

The Court further cited authoritative observations explaining that poisons may disappear from the body due to vomiting, elimination, chemical decomposition, or lack of reliable detection tests, and therefore absence of toxicological confirmation does not conclusively negate poisoning.

It held that in such circumstances, greater reliance must be placed on clinical diagnosis and testimony of treating doctors rather than solely on chemical analysis.

The Court also noted corroborative evidence showing that the poison container contained an organophosphorus insecticide and that the first accused had purchased it from a shopkeeper who identified him in court.

Although several eyewitnesses turned hostile, the Bench held that medical and circumstantial evidence sufficiently established that the child died due to poison administered by the accused.

The Court acknowledged the hardship faced by the parents in caring for a mentally disabled child, but emphasised that “…if the law permits the parents to eliminate the children born with mental retardation, no such child would survive in this world… It is the bounden duty of the parents to take care of their child.”

It added that no person has the right to take the life of another, and parental distress cannot justify such an act.

Conclusion

Finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s findings, the High Court held that the conviction was supported by medical evidence, admissions, and surrounding circumstances, and therefore the appeal lacked merit. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were confirmed, and the criminal appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: S. Muneeswaran & Anr. v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Malli Police Station

Appearances

Appellants: M. Jegadeesh Pandian, Advocate.

Respondent: R. M. Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Click here to read/download Judgment