This article has been written by Ms. Priyanka VK Nair a 2rd year LLB Student of Amity University Mumbai
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a criminal code of India that lays down the principles of criminal law, defines various crimes and prescribes punishments for them. It was first drafted in 1860 under the guidance of Lord Macaulay and came into force on 1st January 1862. The IPC applies to the whole of India except for the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The IPC comprises of a total of 511 sections divided into 23 chapters. These chapters cover a wide range of crimes, including offenses against the state, offenses against public tranquility, offenses against the human body, offenses against property, offenses relating to documents and property marks, offenses relating to marriage, and offenses relating to religion.
The IPC is the primary criminal law in India and is enforced by the police and judiciary. It is an important tool for maintaining law and order in the country and ensuring that justice is served to victims of crimes.
Suicide is the act of intentionally taking one’s own life. It is a serious and tragic event that can have a profound impact on the individual’s family, friends, and community.
Suicidal thoughts or feelings can be brought on by a variety of factors, including mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder, substance abuse, chronic illness, financial difficulties, relationship problems, and other life stressors.
Suicide, or the act of intentionally taking one’s own life, is addressed under Section 309 of the IPC.
Section 309 of the IPC states that whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such an offense, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.
However, in recent years there have been calls to decriminalize suicide and repeal Section 309 of the IPC, as it is seen as a harsh and insensitive provision that penalizes those who are already suffering from mental distress and may need help and support.
The essentials of IPC 309 are as follows:
- Intention to commit suicide: The accused must have had the intention to commit suicide. Mere preparation or contemplation of suicide is not enough.
- Attempt to commit suicide: The accused must have taken some positive steps towards committing suicide, such as consuming poison, jumping off a building, etc.
- The act must not have resulted in death: If the act of suicide has resulted in the death of the accused, then the offence under IPC 309 is not applicable.
Mental state of the accused: The mental state of the accused is taken into consideration while determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the accused was of unsound mind or was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, then he/she may not be held liable for the offence.
The punishment for the offence of attempting to commit suicide under IPC 309 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with a fine, or both. It is a bailable offence, which means that the accused can apply for bail and be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
It is important to note that the punishment under IPC 309 is not meant to be punitive, but rather rehabilitative in nature. The focus is to provide the necessary medical and psychological assistance to the accused to prevent them from attempting suicide in the future. Additionally, the punishment may also be accompanied by counselling and therapy to help the accused overcome the underlying issues that led to the suicidal attempt
Some landmark cases related to Section 309 IPC:
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011): This case dealt with the issue of passive euthanasia. The Supreme Court of India held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court also laid down guidelines for passive euthanasia and directed the government to enact a law to regulate the same.
Sarmistha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2019): In this case, the Calcutta High Court held that Section 309 IPC is unconstitutional and violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court observed that criminalizing attempted suicide does not deter people from attempting suicide but rather drives them towards completing it.
It is worth noting that despite the above cases, Section 309 IPC still exists in the Indian legal system. However, the Law Commission of India has recommended the repeal of the provision in its report submitted to the government in 2018
Is section 309 violative of fundamental right?
There have been differing opinions and judgments regarding whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes attempted suicide, violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
In the case of P. Rathinam vs. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court of India held that Section 309 IPC violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court observed that the right to life includes the right to die, and therefore, criminalizing attempted suicide is an infringement on this right. The court held that the provision should be struck down.
However, in the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1996), the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in P. Rathinam and held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution does not include the right to die. The court held that Section 309 IPC is a reasonable restriction on the right to life under Article 21 and is therefore constitutional.
Subsequently, in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 309 IPC, citing the decision in Gian Kaur.
Therefore, while some judgments have held that Section 309 IPC violates fundamental rights, the current position in Indian law is that it does not violate fundamental rights. However, there have been calls for the repeal of Section 309 IPC, as it is argued that criminalizing attempted suicide is counterproductive and can deter individuals from seeking help and support for their mental health issues.
It’s worth noting that suicide prevention and mental health awareness have become increasingly important issues in India, with efforts being made to address the stigma associated with mental illness and promote mental well-being. Several initiatives and campaigns have been launched to raise awareness about suicide prevention and provide support and resources for those who may be struggling with mental health issues.
Reference
- Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab 1996 AIR 946
- Rathinam vs. Union of India 1994 AIR 1844
- Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India https://indiankanoon.org/doc/235821/
- Sarmistha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal (2019): https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e05c6c48ef15209c953c675
- Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018),
- Section 309 of the IPC https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1501595/
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening