Gyarsibai v.

The State
Submitted By Saloni Padhi
Date : 24/06/2024

FACTS
• The appellant her husband Jagannath and sister-in-law of appellant “Kaisar Bai” used
to live together at the same residence.
• There is a constant quarrel between the appellant and sister-in-law. The appellant’s
husband sometimes thrashes her for picking up the fight from her sister and to halt the
quarrel between the two.
• It is alleged that one such quarrel took place on the morning of 14.8.1951 and the
appellant-husband was not at home his sister-in-law asked the appellant to leave
home; she left the house with her 3 children and said that on the account of her she
would jump into a well.
• Soon after, the appellant went to a well on the village’s edge and threw herself and her
children into the well.
• After some time, some inhabitants arrive at the well to gain some water the saw
appellant at the edge of the well, and all three of her children died by drowning in the
well. The villagers saved the appellant, and she got only minor injuries.

ISSUES
1. Whether the accused was guilty of the murder of her 3 children under section 300 of
IPC?
2. Whether the accused was guilty of the attempt of suicide under section 309 of IPC?

HOLDING
Appellant was convicted by sessions judge Shajapur for having committed the offence under
section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murdering three kids. None of these appellants
intended to kill his/her child(ren). Ingesting poison along with her children, husband and
sister in law it was known that this would most probably lead to death eventually caused by
the appellant herself. She is sentenced to imprisonment.

RATIO DECIDENDI
The trial held in Shajapur convicted the appellant in the sessions court. The prosecution
established that on the morning of the incident, a quarrel occurred, and Kaisar Bai (the
mother-in-law) asked the appellant to leave the house. The appellant admitted that Jagannath
used to beat her.
The judge agreed with the prosecution and the appellant’s account, noting that she was
socially harassed and took steps to prevent further harm. However, the judge stated that the
appellant’s act of jumping into a well with her children due to her sister-in-law’s ill attitude
cannot be justified.
The counsel found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of her
children. Although the appellant did not intend to kill her children, she knew the act was
imminently dangerous and likely to cause death, fitting Clause 4 of Section 300. Clauses 1, 2,
and 3, which involve acts done with the intent to cause death or serious injury, do not apply
here.
According to Clause 4, if death is caused by an act known to be imminently dangerous
without any excuse for incurring the risk, it constitutes murder. The case of Emperor vs.
Dhirajia (1940) supports the conviction for suicide since the appellant was aware she was
taking her own life when she jumped into the well.

JUDGEMENT
The act of the appellant falls under section 300(4), Indian penal code defines murder.
The question, therefore, when the appellant jumped into the well together with her three
children, she knew that her act was so imminently dangerous, as to cause in all probability the
death of her children and further if she had such knowledge; her act of jumping into a well
with her children was “without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
bodily injury as it is mentioned in clause 4 of Section 300, Penal Code.
She left the house on the day of the occurrence saying that she would jump into well with her
children, it cannot be said that she was in such an abnormal state of mind that could not have
any knowledge of the nature of her act. The court observed that, there was no material,
whatsoever, to conclude that the appellant could not have escaped the harassment at the hands
of her sister-in-law except by jumping herself into a well with her three children.
The appellant was sentenced to transportation for life under Section 302, Penal Code.
The Hon’ble SC concluded that the appellant was rightly prosecuted under section 300(4), as
she was not a person of unsound mind, she could think and also know the outcomes of her
actions. Jumping into a well was not the only option left with her. So there was no
justification for her actions, so, it is appropriate to prosecute her under section 300(4).