The Madras High Court observed that the conviction of the two women under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code is justified, however, their behaviour stems from internalised misogyny, which is a product of male-dominated society as they are conditioned to question the female without realising they themselves are victims of such a mindset. Accordingly, the sentence was modified.

A criminal appeal was filed challenging the decision of the Sessions Judge convicting the Appellants of an offence punishable under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 each.

A Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed, “Though I have considered the ill behaviour of the appellants, admonishing the girl child instead of the boy, despite them being from the boy’s family, I take this into account again as a mitigating factor for imposing a lesser penalty. Their behaviour stems from internalised misogyny, which is a product of our male-dominated society. They are conditioned to question the female without realising they themselves are victims of such a mindset. In doing so, they harmed a girl child and made themselves liable for punishment.”

Advocate J. Franklin represented the Appellants, while Advocate J.R. Archana represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

The Appellants were accused of abetting the suicide of a 15 years old girl for having an affair with their nephew and they had verbally abused her with sexually coloured remarks, threatened her about her relationship, and specifically scolded her, saying that she should commit suicide.

Consequently, the minor girl, unable to bear how the Appellants scolded her, ran inside the house, poured kerosene, and set herself on fire. Based on her statement, the case was registered against the Appellants. Later, the girl died of her burn injuries. The minor girl in her dying declaration stated that she was in a relationship with the neighbor, and the boy's parents agreed to the marriage.

It was contended by the Appellants that the girl took the extreme step of pouring kerosene on herself in response to reasonable admonition given by her lover’s aunts. Further, it was submitted that considering the social background of all parties involved, belonging to the lower social strata living in the vicinity where relatives and neighbors actively care for one another and do not hesitate to intervene in each other's affairs, the prosecution cannot suggest any intention that the aunts spoke with the purpose of encouraging the girl to commit suicide.

It was also contended that the Appellants are victims of their social upbringing and circumstances, which the Court should take into account in sentencing.

Court’s Analysis

The Court opined that if Appellants, who are the boy's aunts, opposed the marriage, they should have only admonished the boy and his parents. The conduct of going to the girl and admonishing her is inherently unacceptable, and the words spoken by the Appellants are excessively harsh and extremely sexually charged, likely to drive any 15- year-old child to suicide.

“Since the prosecution proved all elements of the offense under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, that just before pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire, the appellants/accused scolded, threatened, and abused the victim in a manner unbearable for any child of her age, and in a way that prompted her to harm herself, I believe the conviction of the appellants/accused under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code is justified. Accordingly, I uphold the conviction of the appellants/accused”, the Court observed.

While considering the question of the sentence, the Court noted that the offence under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code is a heinous offence. However, given the age, social status, employment details, and the presence of children for one of the Appellants, and under these exceptional circumstances, the Court modified the sentence.

“This part of the area where the offence was committed, namely Kuniamuthur, is part of South Coimbatore, a metropolitan area, and these ordinary women, working as Domestic Helpers and Daily Wagers, are barely recognised or known and it cannot be said that their shorter imprisonment term will result in the erosion of the deterrent effect on the society. They have shown remorse and are only eking out their livelihood in their respective families and need not be committed again to Prison for reformation. They faced legal proceedings and were imprisoned immediately after arrest and sentencing…Therefore, I believe the sentence should be modified to the period already undergone. However, the appellant shall also continue to feel the pinch of their action and it would be appropriate to increase the fine from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.20,000/-”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: Kayar Nisha V. State by Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1556)

Click here to read/download Judgment

Madras High CourtJustice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.