KALYAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three bail applications are being disposed of by this order, namely, Deena Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 3181/87 ), Kalyan Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B Cr. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 3247/87) and Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc Bail Appl. No. 2878/87) . All the aforesaid three bail applications relate to F.I.R. No. 108/87 which was lodged in relation to one Roop Kanwar having committed Sati along with her husband deceased Mal Singh. The case of the prosecution is that Smt. Roop Kanwar in fact did not commit Sati but was burnt alive by Sumer Singh, father of deceased Mal Singh and other persons who were present at the house of Sumer Singh and other accused petitioners were said to have automatically aided in the burning of Smt. Roop Kanwar.

(2.) Smt. Roop Kanwar was married to Mal Singh only on Jan. 17, 11987, Mal Singh all of a sudden bad been taken ill and said to have developed pain in the abdomen and he was admitted in Kalyan Hospital, Sikar on Sept. 3, 1987 and died on Sept. 4, 19S7 in the morning at about 6.50. It is further the case of the prosecution that Sumer Singh, father of deceased Mal Singh, and other took Smt. Roop Kanwar in funeral procession while it is not the custom that ladies accompany the funeral procession. She was dressed and was having all Shringar' and everybody in village knew when the funeral procession was passing through the market that Roop Kanwar is to be made a Sati.

(3.) There is no dispute that along with the dead body of Mal Singh, Roop Kanwar was also consigned to flames. There is dispute as to whether she voluntarily committed Sati or was burnt alive- The case of the prosecution is that she was not a willing party and in order to glorify Sati, she was burnt alive and a story was Hera led that she has committed Sati. I need not to go in the question which shall be considered during the trial of the case. There can be no dispute that there has been no custom of Sati as is well known that a custom must be in existence for many years and must be continued. Even if it would have been the custom, the same could not have been termed as a valid custom. This Court has already held the validity of anti Sati laws which was framed by the Legislature as a piece of legislation. Not only committing Sati but a so its glorification has been banned by an Act of the Legislature. Besides that, it is already an offence under the Indian Penal Code and that apart it cannot be said to be integral part of any religion or of society. It is barbaric and cannot be allowed to be permitted. But besides making legislation it is the duty to create awareness among the public against any widow committing Sati or glorification of Sati.