Convicted of killing 3.5-year-old child, woman lifer gets premature release for good conduct

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court ordered the premature release of a life convict who strangulated a three-and-a-half-year-old child to death, as the probation officer ascertained good conduct to the prisoner.

A division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan wrote that, per the government order, whoever is confined in jail for more than ten years, considering their conduct in prison and fulfilling other conditions, can be eligible for premature release despite the heinous crime they have committed. The bench wrote the judgment allowing premature release to the 38-year-old woman who had been imprisoned for over ten years.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shor vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another case and wrote that while dealing with the premature release of a prisoner who had committed a heinous crime, what should be considered is the cumulative assessment of the prisoner, the period of incarceration, remorse after imprisonment, their age and the possibility of the prisoner reintegrating with society and leading a peaceful and normal life. The factor that the prisoner’s release would send an adverse message to society should not be considered.

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner’s wife Poovarasi was convicted for life by the sixth additional sessions court Chennai in 2011 for killing a three-and-a-half-year-old child by strangulation. Later, she was taken to Puzhal Central Prison.

In 2021, the State issued an order for the premature release of prisoners who have been confined for more than ten years on account of celebrating the late Chief Minister CN Annadurai’s 113 birth anniversary.

Poovarasi’s husband, Manikandan, moved a representation to the Puzhal prison authority seeking the premature release of his wife.

However, the prison authority rejected the representation as the convict had committed a heinous crime, and the probation officer also did not recommend her release. Hence, the convict remained in prison despite being in jail for more than ten years. Relentlessly, Manikandan moved the petition challenging the rejection of premature release.

The probation officer filed a new report in 2024 stating that there was no threat to the prisoner’s life or any other persons from the prisoner and that she could get a decent job after her release.

Recording the report, the bench ordered the premature release of the convict.