What is Suyambukani case?
In the words of the Honourable Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Thiyagarajan vs State by Inspector of Police, K1 Sembium Police Station, Chennai – Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2018, dated February 13, 2023, outlined the case of Suyambukkani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1989 LW Criminal 86 (Mad-DB), as follows:
“15. A careful perusal of Suyambukkani case brings to light that, that was a case where the appellant was driven to the extreme step of attempting to end her life along with her children. In this case, the Honourable Division Bench made a reference to Nallathangal Ballad which is a piece of Tamil literature where a rich lady reduced to an unbearable misery committed suicide along with her children. It was eloquently and elucidatively articulated by the Division Bench that the act of Nallathangal was extolled and not castigating leading to situation what is known as Nallathangal Syndrome. Becoming larger law prevalent, this means that Suyambukkani case turns on the principle that poverty cannot be criminalised.
16. In the case of Suyambukkani, she was married at the age of 19 to a hair dresser and blessed with two male children who were 2 ½ years and 10 months at the time of occurrence and having been driven to the brink of the society owing to extreme poverty and destitution which in turn attributable to the callousness of her spouse attempted to end her life along with her children akin to Nallathangal Ballad”.
The Hon’ble Madras Division bench then did not apply the Suyambukani case and dismissed the appeal.
Now,
Let’s start
What was not considered in the Suyambukani case is the act of children “begging for their lives” before they die at the hands of their ‘cruel’ mother in the “Nallathangal ballad”.
In the Suyambukani case, despite the “grave begging” and “death screams” of children, their ‘cruel’ mother, with all the intention and knowledge, had killed them while trying to ‘kill herself’ (a perfect word for ‘suicide’). The above act is a ‘culpable homicide amounting to murder’. It is not the case of the prosecution in Suyambukkani nor in the Nallathangal ballad that the children had died voluntarily. Therefore, it’s logical and also legal to presume that the children in the Suyambukkani case also did not voluntarily accompany their mother in her death inasmuch as the ages of the children were only 2 ½ years and 10 months, respectively.
Ok! What is Culpable Homicide (section 299 IPC)? A Basic Understanding …
Homicide refers to ‘killing of the same kind,’ and culpable means ‘taking responsibility.’
If a person killed (caused death of) another human being having both intention and knowledge, then the person is responsible for ‘culpable homicide amounting to murder’ as per the definition under section 300 IPC for which he shall be punished as per section 302 IPC sentence to death or life.
If a person killed (caused death of) another human being with both intention and knowledge but the entire act was due to ‘sudden provocation’, then the person is responsible for ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ as per definition “u/s 300 IPC – exception” which is punishable under section 304 part I IPC.
If a person killed (caused death of) another human being without intention but with ‘knowledge’ then the person is still be held responsible for ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ as per definition u/s 300 IPC but his act was punishable u/s 304-Part II IPC.
Judgment reference
That section requires that the bodily injury must be intended and the bodily injury intended to be caused must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This clause is in two parts; the first part is a subjective, one which indicates that the injury must be an intentional one and not an accidental one; the second part is objective in that looking at the injury intended to be caused, the court must be satisfied that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We think that the first part is complied with, because the injury which was intended to be caused was the one which was found on the person of Ramrao. But the second part in our opinion is not fulfilled, because but for the fact that the injury caused the severing of artery, death might not have ensued. In other words, looking at the matter objectively, the injury which Laxman intended to cause did not include specifically the cutting of the artery but to wound Ramrao in the neighbourhood of the clavicle. Therefore, we are of opinion that the thirdly of s. 300 does not cover the case. Inasmuch as death has been caused, the matter must still come within at least culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There again, S. 299 is in three parts. The first part takes in the doing of an act with the intention of causing death. As we have shown above, Laxman did not in- tend causing death and the first part of S. 299 does not apply. The second part deals with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Here again, the intention must be to cause the precise injury likely to cause death and that also, as we have shown above, was not the intention of Laxman. The matter therefore comes within the third part. The act which was done was done with the knowledge that Laxman was likely by such act to cause the death of Ramrao. The case falls within the third part of s. 299 and will be punishable under the second part of s. 304 of the Indian Penal Code as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. [Laxman Kalu Nikalje vs The State Of Maharashtra – 1969 MLJ(Crl) 3 (SC)= AIR 1968 SC 1390= 1968 CriLJ 1647=1968 SCC Online 113 – 3 Judge Bench] [also see: Reg vs. Govinda – (1877) ILR 1 Bom 342];
‘Ill Will’ or ‘intention’
The Hon’ble Madras High Court Division Bench, while appreciating the facts of the Suyambukkani case, has introduced the words ‘Ill-will’ and held as follows:
“One thing is clear from the above analysis viz., in all the Exceptions either premeditation or ill-will is absent. Therefore, when both are present, it will be impossible to counter the matter as an exception”
If we analyse under what situation the words ‘Ill-Will’ were used instead of ‘intention’ is when the Hon’ble Madras High Court Division Bench innovatively discovered the word ‘family suicide’ (based on the arguments ‘collective suicide’ from the bar), and the relevant observation is as follows:
27. As pointed out earlier, ill-will and premeditation should be both present in a case of murder. The absence of one of them coupled with an important excusing circumstance would transform the offence into a culpable homicide. In the present case, there is of course premeditation, but obviously no ill-will. The extreme course of family suicide, the mother along with her children, is clearly in our opinion an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Section 300. I.P.C. and will be therefore in the nature of an Exception, when the mother escapes and children die, bringing the offence to one punishable under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C.
No doubt the term “ill-will” appears in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in six different instances. In the context of the current case, Exception 3 to Section 300 of the IPC is particularly relevant. This exception is specifically written for public servants, rather than the general public, and therefore, the mention of “ill-will” does not apply to this case.
The Hon’ble Madras Division Bench in the Suyambukkani case failed to classify this murder (two counts) as “filicide” (Maternal filicide in the case on hand), a term that already existed, instead coined as ‘family suicide’.
A woman who murders (kills) her children (or anyone’s children) is the one, undeniably guilty of a grave and heinous crime, which is certainly punishable under section 302 IPC. This act cannot be defended or justified by referring to a mythical ballad called “Nallathangal story” (which is filled with homicide, suicide and filicide) and labelled the same as “Nallathangal syndrome”.
It is apparent that the person who wrote the ‘Nallathangal ballad’ had killed all the main characters in the story. This story so far does not offer any moral lesson to society except the love of a brother and sister [still, this story is being celebrated as a folklore denoting the love and affection between brother and sister].
At this time, it is essential to note that the author of the ‘Nallathangal ballad’ had the courtesy of portraying the ‘death screams and desperate pleas‘ of the children for their lives before they were killed/thrown into the well by their cruel mother. I wonder and fail to understand why that part was conveniently left out in the Suyambukkani case.
If the death screams and grave begging of the children had been described, or, at least, a presumption of how the children drowned (drowning causes asphyxia by preventing the entry of air into the lungs, leading to oxygen deprivation) could have been examined while appreciating the evidence, then the matter could have turned differently. Further, this case might have been classified as one of the ‘rarest of rare cases’ in the Indian court history.
In the entire case of Suyambukkani, the Hon’ble Division Bench has not at all considered the natural word such as ‘intention’ and ‘filicide’ but substituted the same with ‘Ill-will’ and ‘family suicide’.
If the mother survived, but the children died due to the act of their mother, then, I wonder where is the question of family suicide?
If we interpret the word ‘intention’ and assert that there is no ‘ill-will’ in cases of filicide, then every single (blow) injury offence may easily fall within the meaning of ‘good-will’, which is contrary to the ‘intention’ of the Master draftsman.
My Conclusion
Without a doubt, why the Master draftsman Lord McCauley is still considered a genius is for the special reason, which I believe, that he would have dismissed the theory of “Nallathangal syndrome” ‘intentionally’ with a laugh on the face of the person or persons who brought it to his ‘knowledge’ while drafting culpable homicide.
[Please read the article ‘A case series of twenty-one maternal filicides in the UK’ from the following link:
Author: Ramprakash Rajagopal, Advocate.
