Madras HC commutes jail term of woman who poured boiling oil on husband

Justice M Nirmal Kumar passed the orders while partially allowing the appeal against the trial court order preferred by the woman, Ayisha.

Published: 18th January 2023 05:46 AM  |   Last Updated: 18th January 2023 05:46 AM   |  A+A-

Last week the coalition said it would release 163 prisoners it accused of participating in 'hostilities' against Saudi Arabia.

Image used for representational purpose only.

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court recently commuted the prison term awarded to a woman for killing her husband by pouring boiling oil on him after a fight over roasting pappad for dinner.

Justice M Nirmal Kumar passed the orders while partially allowing the appeal against the trial court order preferred by the woman, Ayisha. The victim Abdul Rasheeth  died 28 days after the incident from ‘septicemia due to burn injuries’ which may be due to various reasons including improper medical treatment, the judge said. In this case, there is a dearth of medical records of the deceased, and reasons for not producing records are not known, he added.

The judge ordered, “..the conviction of the trial court under section 304 (ii) of IPC  is modified to section 326 of the IPC and the sentence of imprisonment is also modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant.” (Section 326 of IPC deals with Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.) 

On November 7, 2012, the appellant, Ayisha of Krishnagiri, poured boiling oil on Rasheeth. The incident was a result of a fallout of their strained relationship. Sustaining severe burns, Rasheeth was taken to a private hospital in Berigai and later moved to Hosur Government Hospital. However, he succumbed on December 05, 2012. 

A case was registered under Section 302 of the IPC. The additional district sessions judge in Hosur convicted her with five years imprisonment under section 304 (ii) of the IPC (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) in 2016. Challenging the conviction, she preferred the appeal. Her counsel contended that witnesses in the case were deceased’s relatives and none saw the occurrence.


India Matters

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.