EMPEROR vs MT DHIRAJIA Case Summary (1940 SC) -

Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law Exams

Preparation
https://lawplanet.in/emperor-vs-mt-dhirajia-case-summary-1940-sc/

Emperor vs MT Dhirajia case deals with the criminal law

concept of Indian Penal Code 1860, in which a comparison of
Section 299(c) with Section 300(4) has been drawn. For
committing an offence under criminal law concept of mens
rea is there to punish the convict for the offence which the
offender did. This case falls under section 299, 300 of IPC,
1860, which deals with Culpable Homicide and Murder.

BENCH

Hon’ble Justice Braund

DATE OF JUDGMENT

04th June 1940

RELEVANT SECTIONS

Section 299, 300, 302,304, and 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Accused i.e. Mt Dhirajia, was a married woman and lived with her
husband named Jhagga in a village. They had a six months old daughter.
That the husband did not treat his wife well and they often quarrel with
each other. The husband also threatened to beat his wife. That her
husband doesn’t like that she would go to their parent’s house in
Bhagatua.
 Later that night, when Jhagga woke up and find that his wife and child
were both missing.
He went on for searching them outside and saw her wife and the child
close to the railway line where she was making her way along the path.
When she saw her husband was following him, she ran away in panic
and ran to some distance by holding their baby in her arms and either
jumped or fell into the deep well which was a little distance from the
path.
The child died from this incident while the woman was rescued and
might have few injuries.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Accused- The Accused contended her husband threatened to beat and

quarrel between them. Therefore, she fled away and jumped into the well
from the fear of her husband.

Buy Best Book of IPC by K.D. Gaur (Latest Edition)

ISSUES PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT

Whether this act of jumping into the well was to commit suicide?
Whether she will be convicted for murder of her own child?

RATIO DECENDI OF THE CASE

The Honorable Justice Braund was of the opinion that it was perfectly
clear with statement of fact. There was a possibility on advice that she
changed her story and alleged that she fell into the well by accident.

By stating those facts, we consider that the Learned Sessions Judges ought
to have considered that whether it satisfies the charges for murder and
attempted suicide and if not, what was the offence of the woman.

The Court was satisfied that there was no intention was ever-present in her
mind. But we consider that what she did, she did with the knowledge that
she was likely to do such an act which causes death.
The act of jumping into well with sex months old child holding in one’s arm
can. In our conclusion, we regret we assume that the consequence was in
the knowledge, but not within the intention of Mt. Dhirajia. For these
reasons, Court concluded this as an offence of culpable homicide.

Buy IPC Bare Act (Latest Edition)

DECISION

The Session Judges of Benares charged the accused with murder and later
on the same time she was attempted for suicide by the Jury.

The result of the trial of the jury was that she was found not guilty of
attempting suicide. The Learned Sessions Judge was not agreed with the
verdict of the jury upon the charge of committing suicide and therefore
referred the case with the recommendation that the verdict of the jury shall
be set aside and the appellant should be convicted under section 309 and
302 of IPC.

The High Court of Allahabad was of the opinion that Mt. Dhirajia had no
intentions to kill the child and her act resulted from panic. Here, she was
rightly acquitted under section 309 of IPC, 1860.

Further, the High Court stated they cannot accept Sessions Judge’s verdict
and stated that the appellant’s conviction under section 302 of IPC was set
aside and substituted it under section 304 of IPC.

It is obvious from the facts that this is not the case for severe punishment.
Unfortunately, the woman has already been in prison for eight months and
High Court deemed she should be sentenced to six months of rigorous
imprisonment, which in effect means that she will be released at once
unless she is proven guilty of some other charges.

Found this case summary useful? Check out other landmark IPC Case
summaries here >>> IPC Case Summaries