This case analysis is written by Anurag Maharaj, a student of law at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida. I have tried to describe the famous and controversial case Gian Kaur vs The State of Punjab, 1996.
Gian Kaur vs The State of Punjab.
Bench
Justice J.S. Verma, Justice G.N. Ray, Justice N.P. Singh, Justice Faizanuddin and Justice G.T. Nanavati.
Facts of the case
Constitutional provisions involved in this case:-
1. Article 21 is the protection of life and personal freedom No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except as provided for in the law. The Article forbids the deprivation of the aforementioned rights except in compliance with a legal procedure.
2. Indian Penal Code Section 306, Abetment of suicide:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the execution of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of any form for a period which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
3. Indian Penal Code section 309 criminalizes attempted suicide as well as suicide aid.
Section 309 states: Anyone who attempts to commit suicide and acts against the commission of such offence shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term of up to one year, or with fine, or both.
Gian Kaur, Harbans Singh and Kulwant Singh were all involved in this case. Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh had been charged with abetting their daughter-in-law Kulwant Singh’s suicide. They both wanted their son to re-marry with someone else because of selfish intentions to acquire dowry so they abetted this crime. They had a strong intention of seeing her dead.
The Trial Court challenged this. It came up before the High Court on appeal. On the ground that Section 306, IPC is unconstitutional, the appellants’ conviction was assailed.
Judgement
It was held that under Article 21 the “right to life” would not include the “right to die” or the “right to be killed”. The ”right to death” is inherently inconsistent with the ‘right to life. ”Right to life is a fundamental right expressed in Article 21, but suicide is an immoral end or termination of life and is inconsistent with the principle of the right to life.
The court, therefore, ruled that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (1860), which punishes a person convicted of attempting suicide, is not in violation of Articles 14 and 21 and is therefore not unconstitutional. And this is quite a controversial issue.
Pursuant to Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860, appellants Gian Kaur and her husband Harban Singh were convicted by the Trial Court and each sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment and fines of Rs. 2,000, or, by default, additional rigorous imprisonment for nine months, for Kulwant Kaur’s commission of suicide.
The conviction of both was upheld on appeal to the High Court but Gian Kaur ‘s sentence alone was reduced to rigorous imprisonment of three years. Those special leave appeals are against their conviction and sentence in accordance with Section 306, IPC.
Latest Posts
- Internship Opportunity at Smriti Legal LLP
- Internship Opportunity at Mandla & Singh Law Chambers
- Job Opportunity at Zest IP
- Internship Opportunity at SPRF
- Internship Opportunity at Kay and Partners
- Internship Opportunity at AAA Legal
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: Challenges and Effectiveness
- Internship Opportunity at The Chambers of Bharat Chugh
- Internship Opportunity at Competition Commission of India
- Job Opportunity at Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
- Call for papers: GNLU SRDC ADR Magazine volume 3 issue 2
- Call for papers by INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EDUCATION
- CLAT-Peeps! (10)
- Current Affairs (2)
- competitions (117)
- Conferences and Seminars (143)
- Course and Workshops (58)
- Debates (38)
- Eassy Competitions (43)
- Fellowships & Scholarships (37)
- Guest Blogs (6)
- important (26)
- Internships and Jobs (1,456)
- interviews (8)
- moot court (124)
- Opportuintes (1,519)
- Job Opportunity (531)
- opportunity (1,535)
- Call for papers (312)
- Quizes,fests and others (224)
- Work Opportunity (263)
- Our Blog (885)
- Administrative Law (14)
- ADR (13)
- Arms Act (2)
- Case Analysis (174)
- Company law (35)
- Constitutional Law (113)
- Consumer Protection Act (13)
- Contract Law (56)
- CPC (9)
- Criminal Law (114)
- Cyber Law (12)
- Environmental Laws (24)
- Evidence Act (20)
- Family Law (5)
- General (173)
- International Humanitarian Law (3)
- International law (20)
- IPR (8)
- Jurisprudence (10)
- labor laws (3)
- Maritime Laws (1)
- Partnership Act (2)
- personal law (31)
- Taxation (8)
- Tort (60)
- Transfer of Property (2)
- Our Services (9)
- career advice (2)
- others (4)
- Top Stories (257)
- Uncategorized (648)
Archives
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019