Case Summary: Gyarsibai w/o Jagannath Vs. The State

Author: Mayank Raj

Case Name: Gyarsibai w/o Jagannath Vs. The State

Citation: 1953 CriLJ 588

Bench: Dixit and Chatuarvedi


In the case, Gyarsibai vs. The State, the appellant were preceded before of the session decide of Shajapur of an offence under the Section 302 IPC for the murder of herself and 3 children and offence under Section 309 IPC commit of suicide. She had  sentenced to the transportation for life under Section 302 IPC and 6 month imprisonments under Section 309 IPC. Each these sentences had directed to run at the same time.

As per Section 309 of the IPC is Attempt to commit suicide states that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.

It merely aforementioned that if anyone who agency kill and so it does not prospering in arrange to their object then they should face impressments for one year or fine or each.

As per Section 302 of the IPC is Punishment for murder states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall be liable to fine.

For holding an individual liable underneath sec 302 IPC, it is necessary to prove that the act committed amounts to the offence of Murder as outlined under section 300 of the IPC and penalization that is provided under Sec 302 IPC. An individual is claimed to commit the offence of murder once being an individual of sound mind, he kills the other affordable person. The intention and information of an individual whereas committing the act plays a serious role here.


The facts of this case are very simple. The family who lived together with their three children and their children age was 7, 5, 1.5 years and sister- in- law also lived with them. There were constant quarrels between the appellant and her sister-in-law and extremely often Jagannath accustomed slap the appellant for choosing a quarrel along with her sister-in-law Kaisar Bai.

On the morning, 14/8/1951 when Jagannath who was husband of an appellant was away from the home, during this argument took place between Kaisar Bai and the appellant and Kasira Bai told the appellant to leave the house. After that, the appellant left the house with their 3 children and appellant told, Kaisar Bai that, she will responsible of her, if she jump into the well. After some time the appellant went to the well in the village and jump into the well with their 3 children. After few hours, some villagers found that Gyarasibai who supporting herself on an edge of the well and their 3 children died in the well. After that, the appellant was represent in front of the magistrate also in front of session judge and she committed in front of them that she jumped into the well with their children on the account of her sister-in-law Kaisar Bai’s harassment.

The fact of evidence had enough basis that the prosecution from the statement given by Kaisar Bai and Narayan. The statement given by them that, on that morning, the argument were happened between Kaisar Bai and Gyarasibai. During the argument, Kaisar Bai asked Gyarasibai who was appellant to leave the house and she left the house with their three children and said that she would jump into the well. Kaisar Bai also confers that several time Jagannath used slap her for argument with her. The other prosecution witnesses deposed to the picking up of the bodies of three children and  rescue the appellant. There is no witness of the fact that the appellant jumped down the well herself together with her three children. But from the statements of Kaisar Bai, Narayan and the statement of the appellant herself before the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge that  I am fully satisfied  with her own statement that she jumped into the well herself along with her three children in order to escape harassment at the hands of her sister-in-law Kaisar Bai.

Issue and fact of law

  • Whether the appellant is guilty of the offence of murder of the 3 children and of attempted suicide.
  • Whether the Section 300(4) of IPC will apply in this case. Section 300(4) states that  If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as previously mentioned.


The court said that the appellant has to go transportation for life under Section 302 of IPC. The only sentence that could legally be passed in this case. In regard to the fact and circumstance of the case and the fact of the appellant, the appellant was not legally insane and could not be in the normal state of mind when she jumped into the well with 3 children. The court said that the case does not deserve severe punishment. The court recommends to the government that to commute the sentence of transportation for life to one of three years of rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment awarded to the appellant for the offense under Section 309 is appropriate.

Courts also said that Section 300(4) IPC the act of the appellant in jumping down into a well together with her three children is murder. This act of the appellant clearly falls murder. On the other side, it was clearly showed that the appellant Gyarasi Bai had no intention to cause the death of any of her children and she or she jumped into the well not with the intention of killing sher children but with the intention of committing suicide. The situation of the case with any degree of force that when the appellant jumped into a well together with her children she had not the knowledge that her act was so imminently dangerous on cause the death of her children. Her life may need to become unbearable because of domestic troubles and maybe because of those troubles, she decided to require her own life. Because of the discord within the house, the appellant was subjected to severe exasperation and to an extended course of conduct causing suffering and anxiety. However, when because of these reasons, she left the house on the day of the occurrence saying that she would jump into a well along with her children, it cannot be said that she was in such an abnormal state of mind that might not have any knowledge of the character of her act. This is the reason why the court does not in section 300(4) of IPC.