development. The distressful economic conditions alone may not have forced
the husband of the writ petitioner herein to take recourse to the said
action, which can be reasonably attributed to a mental aberration. Since,
the writ petitioner has lost one of her two children and the reason for such
loss is attributed to the act of demand of payment of exorbitant fee by the
School Management- the 8th respondent, the writ petitioner now seeks relief
of securing free education for the remaining and surviving child and also
compensation for the double tragedy of her's.
We are at a loss to appreciate the contention canvassed in this
regard.
Firstly, the act of the husband of the writ petitioner in killing an
innocent child out of frustration cannot be appreciated at all. Even if a
child cannot be supported reasonably and legitimately to secure him good
education, there are well recognized and civilised methods to secure
education to the children. The State Government, as a measure of welfare of
the Society at large, has been running and maintaining several institutions
for promoting the cause of education, so that, the economic distressful
conditions of the family would not be a cause for children from dropping out
from the academic life. There are also philanthropic organizations which
lend support in the Society. Instead of approaching any such organizations
the husband of the writ petitioner has taken recourse to a violent measure.
Luckily for him, he did not survive but succumbed lest he would have been
prosecuted for killing his innocent child. Under Section 357 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, the victims can be compensated by the Courts, but,
however such compensation is liable to be awarded for any loss or injury
caused by the offence, but not otherwise. In the instant case, the offence
unleashed by the husband of the writ petitioner towards an innocent child, if
there is one who will have to tender compensation for having caused loss of
the child of the writ petitioner, in turn, that would be the husband of the
writ petitioner. Since he was no more, he could not be prosecuted.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation against
the State Government, to say is a milder manner, an extravagant one.
State is nowhere responsible for the violent action unleashed by the husband
of the writ petitioner.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2016
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO
and
MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Writ Appeal (MD) No.909 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No.5588 of 2016
Easwari Vs Principal Secretary, Department of School Education,
State of Tamil Nadu,
