GIAN KAUR SURAT LAL HARBANS SINGH CHANDRABHUSHAN DILBAGH SINGH LOKENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB:RAJ KUMARS:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH :STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in special leave petitions.

(2.) The appellants Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted by the trial Court under Sec. 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and each sentenced to six years' RI and fine of Rs. 2,000, or, in default, further RI for nine months, for abetting the commission of suicide by Kulwant Kaur. On appeal to the High Court, the conviction of both has been maintained but the sentence of Gian Kaur alone has been reduced to RI for three years. These appeals by special leave are against their conviction and sentence under Sec. 306 I.P.C.

(3.) The conviction of the appellants has been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that Sec. 306 I.P.C. is unconstitutional. The first argument advanced to challenge the constitutional validity of Sec. 306 I.P.C. rests on the decision in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, reported in 1996(2) SCC 648, by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court wherein Sec. 309 I.P.C. has been held to be unconstitutional as violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution. It is urged that "right to die" being included in Art. 21 of the Constitution as held in P. Rathinam (supra) declaring Sec. 309 I.P.C. to be unconstitutional, any person abetting the commission of suicide by another is merely assisting in the enforcement of the fundamental right under Art. 21; and, therefore, Sec. 306 I.P.C. penalising assisted suicide is equally violative of Art. 21. This argument, it is urged, is alone sufficient to declare that Sec. 306 I.P.C. also is unconstitutional being violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution.