Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab

Case Name - Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab on 21 March 1996

Citation - 1996 AIR 946, 1996 SCC (2) 648

Bench - J S Verma, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, Faizan Uddin, and G.T. Nanavati JJ.

Parties Involved -

• Petitioner - Smt. Gian Kaur

• Respondent - The State of Punjab

Relevant Act ad Sections -

• Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949

• Section 309 in The Indian Penal Code

• Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code

• The Indian Penal Code

Facts of the Case

• The petitioner Gian Kaur and her husband, Harbans Singh instigated their daughter-in-law, Kulwant Kaur to commit suicide. They were charged with Abetment of suicide under section 306 of IPC. In the trial court, they were convicted of the offence. They challenged their conviction in the Supreme Court of India.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether Section 306 of IPC, 1860 is constitutionally valid?

2. Whether Section 309 of IPC violates Article 14 and 21 of the constitution.

3. Whether 'Right to life' includes 'Right to die' under Article 21 of the constitution?

Petitioner's Argument

1. The counsel for the petitioner challenged the conviction stating that they did abet the suicide of their daughter-in-law. They argued that keeping in view the judgement in P Rathinam Case, Section 306 pf IPC is unconstitutional. In P Rathinam Case it was held that the 'Right to Life' under Article 21 included 'Right to Die'. Hence Section 306 that provides punishment for abetment of suicide is not valid.

2. They also contended that Section 309 of IPC is also unconstitutional.

Respondent's Argument

1. The counsel for the State contended that Section 306 and 309 of IPC are independent of each other. The offences and the punishment mentioned in both these sections can exist without each other. Hence Section 306 of IPC is valid and the petitioners must be punished. They held that the conviction by the lower court must be upheld.

2. They also challenged the judgement of the P Rathinam Case and said that the right to life cannot include the right to die.

Judgement of the Case

• The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the P Rathinam Case. The court held that Section 309 is not violative of Article 21 because it does include the right to die. The 'right to life' does not include the 'right to die'. The court drew a distinction between the 'right to die with dignity and the' right to die'. Since Section 309 does violate any fundamental right it was held to be constitutional. Section 306 of IPC was also held to be constitutional as it deals with different offences and exists independently. Abetment to commit suicide is punishable under the IPC.

Reference

• Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab on 21 March 1996 (indiankanoon.org)

Similar Case Laws

1. Maharashtra v Maruti Shripati Dubal, 25 September, 1986, 1987 (1) BomCR 499, (1986) 88 BOMLR 589

2. P. Rathinam v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394

For a simpler understanding, refer to the article " What if a Person Fails to Commit Suicide?” by clicking the button below.

What if a Person Fails to Commit Suicide?