top of page
Blue Sand White Beach Simple Watercolor Etsy Shop Banner.jpg

Gyarsibai vs The State || 1953 CRILJ 588 || Case Summary


Two Woman Arguing

Facts

  • Gyarsibai was convicted under Section 302 and Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Sessions Judge of Shajapur.

  • She was accused of murdering her three children by jumping into a well with them and attempting suicide.

  • The incident occurred after persistent domestic discord, including harassment from her sister-in-law, Kaisar Bai, and physical abuse by her husband, Jagannath.

  • On the morning of the incident, after an argument, Kaisar Bai allegedly told Gyarsibai to leave the house. In distress, Gyarsibai took her children to a well and jumped in. While she survived, her children perished.

  • Gyarsibai admitted to her actions, attributing them to harassment by her sister-in-law.


Issues

  1. Whether Gyarsibai's act of jumping into the well with her children constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC.

  2. Whether her attempted suicide is punishable under Section 309 IPC.

  3. Whether Gyarsibai had an "excuse" for incurring the risk of causing her children's death as per Clause 4 of Section 300 IPC.


Key Legal Provisions

  • Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder. [Section 103(1) of BNS]

  • Section 309 IPC: Punishment for attempting suicide. [Removed from BNS]

  • Clause 4 of Section 300 IPC: An act is considered murder if it is done with the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death and is committed "without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death." [Section 101 of BNS]


Judgement

  • The court held that Gyarsibai's act of jumping into the well with her children was murder under Clause 4 of Section 300 IPC.

    • Gyarsibai had knowledge that her actions were imminently dangerous and likely to cause death.

    • Her domestic discord and harassment by her sister-in-law did not constitute a valid excuse to justify risking the lives of her children.

  • Gyarsibai was not deemed insane or in a state of panic severe enough to negate her knowledge of the consequences of her actions.

  • The court distinguished this case from Emperor v. Dhirajia and Supadi Lukada v. Emperor, as there was no immediate panic or lack of awareness involved.

  • The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and six months’ simple imprisonment under Section 309 IPC were upheld.


 
 
 

Comments


White Purple Abstract Modern Call For Papers Academic Poster.png
Blue & White Marketing Agency Advertisement Poster.jpg

Ask us for a case summary

or ask us something

  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
bottom of page