It is sincerely unfortunate that Attempt to Commit Suicide continues to locate mention as an offence below our Penal Statute however the fact that after a distressed or annoyed individual makes a decision to terminate his/her preceding life upfront, it is certainly irrational and unfair to go to him with punishment on his failure to do so. Such hapless individuals instead require sympathy, counselling and suitable remedy and not the prison anyhow. Suicide manner the destruction of the self by means of the self or the intentional destruction of one’s self. Suicide as such is no crime under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for obvious reasons. It is handiest attempt to devote suicide this is punishable below the phase 309 IPC.
A lot of conflicting critiques have generated at the desirability of preserving or deleting Section 309 of Indian Penal Code because of some contrasting judgments given through our Courts approximately whether proper to existence consists of proper to die in the which means of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Read – Article 21 : An Expansive Interpretation
One set of humans are of the opinion that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a provision ensuring safety of existence and private liberty and by way of no stretch of the imagination can extinction of life be read to be included in safety of existence. By asserting an try to commit suicide against the law, the Indian Penal Code upholds the glory of human lifestyles, due to the fact human life is as treasured to the State as it’s far, to its holder and the State cannot turn a blind eye to someone in attempting to kill himself. Another set of humans are of the opinion that the Section 309 of Indian Penal Code is cruel and irrational as it provides double punishment for a troubled individual whose deep sadness had prompted him to try and cease his life. It is cruel to inflict extra criminal punishment on someone who has already suffered affliction and ignominy in his failure to dedicate suicide.
Constitutional validity of Section 309 I.P.C.
Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra
Justice P.B. Sawant: If the purpose of the prescribed punishment is to prevent the prospective suicides by deterrence, it is difficult to understand how the same can be achieved by punishing those who have made the attempts. Those who make the suicide attempt on account of mental disorder requires psychiatric treatment and not confinement in the prison cells where their condition is bound to be worsen leading to further mental derangement. Those on the other hand, who makes a suicide attempt on account of actual physical ailments, incurable disease, torture (broken down by illness), and deceit physical state induced by old age or disablement, need nursing home and not prison to prevent them from making the attempts again. No deterrence is going to hold back those who want to die for a special or political cause or to leave the world either because of the loss of interest in life or for self- deliverance. Thus in no case does the punishment serve the purpose and in some cases it is bound to prove self defeating and counter – productive.
Chenna Jagadishwar v. State of A.P
The Division Bench of Andhra High court upheld the constitutionality of segment 309, I.P.C., and remarked that “proper to life does no longer necessarily symbolize a right to die” that is an offence and consequently phase 309 isn’t always violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the constitution. It became also talked about that the courts have sufficient electricity to peer that unwarranted harsh treatment or prejudice isn’t always meted out to those who need care and attention. This, therefore does not violative of Article 14.
P. Rathinam v. Union of India
While hanging down Section 309, I.P.C., the Apex Court said ‘it’s miles cruel and irrational provision violative of Article 21 of the constitution.’ Expanding the scope of Article 21, the court upheld that, ‘right to lifestyles’ encompass ‘right no longer to stay a pressured life’; i.E., to quit one’s life if one so desires. The court docket went on to say that-“…it is able to bring about punishing someone once more (doubly) who has suffered pain and could be present process ignominy (humiliation) because of his failure to commit suicide…An act of suicide cannot be said to be in opposition to religion, morality or public coverage and an act of attempted suicide has not baneful impact on society. Further, suicide or attempt to devote it causes no harm to others, due to which country’s interference with a non-public liberty of the worried person is known as for.” The Court further stated a person who attempts to commit suicide does not deserve prosecution because he has failed. There can be no justification to prosecute sacrificers of their lives. For instance, students who soar into the properly after having failed in examination but live to tell the tale; ladies and boys who resent organized marriage and prefer to die, however ultimately fail, do no longer deserve punishment; as an alternative soft phrases, wise counselling of a psychiatrist and no longer stony dealing by using a jailor following harsh remedy meted out by way of a heartless prosecutor.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[13]
The Apex Court in addition held that Section 306, I.P.C. As constitutional and stated that ‘proper to life’ does no longer include ‘proper to die’. Extinction of existence isn’t always covered in safety of existence. The Court further went on to mention that Section 306 constitute a awesome offence and might exist independently of Section 309, I.P.C. As regards Section 309, I.P.C. Is involved, the court docket said that the’ right to life’ assured below Article 21 of the Constitution did no longer encompass the ‘right to die’ or ‘right to be killed’ and therefore an try and commit suicide below segment 309, I.P.C. Or even abetment of suicide underneath section 306, I.P.C., are well in the constitutional mandated, and aren’t void or ultra vires.
The Court said – “Article 21 is a provision making sure safety of lifestyles and private liberty and via no stretch of creativeness can ‘extinction of existence’ be read to be covered in ‘safety of lifestyles’ whatever can be the philosophy of allowing a person to extinguish his lifestyles by using committing suicide, it is hard to construe Article 21 to consist of within its ambit the ‘right to die’ as part of the Fundamental Right guaranteed therein. ‘Right to existence’ is a herbal right embodied in Article 21, however suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and therefore incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘proper to lifestyles’.”
Law Commission 210th Report
The 18th Law Commission in its 210th Report titled ‘Humanization and Decriminalization of Attempt to Suicide’ submitted on October 17, 2008 gave the subsequent hints:-
Suicide occurs in all ages. Life is a present given by way of God and He on my own can take it. Its premature termination can’t be authorised by any society. But while a bothered man or woman attempts to give up his lifestyles, it might be merciless and irrational to go to him with punishment on his failure to die. It is his deep sadness which reasons him to try and stop his lifestyles. Attempt to suicide is greater a manifestation of a diseased circumstance of thoughts deserving of treatment and care in preference to punishment. It might not be simply and fair to inflict extra legal punishment on someone who has already suffered agony and ignominy in his failure to devote suicide.
Read – Reincarnation Of Article 21- Right To Life And Personal Liberty
The crook law must now not act with out of place overzeal and it is most effective in which it is able to prove to be apt and powerful equipment to cure the supposed evil that it must come into the photo.
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code presents double punishment for someone who has already got bored stiff together with his own life and desires to cease it. Section 309 is likewise a stumbling block in prevention of suicides and enhancing the get entry to of medical care to those who’ve tried suicide. It is unreasonable to inflict punishment upon a person who as a result of circle of relatives discord, destitution, loss of a dear relation or different purpose of a like nature overcomes the instinct of self-protection and comes to a decision to take his personal life. In this type of case, the unlucky character deserves sympathy, counselling and appropriate treatment, and simply not the jail.
Section 309 needs to be effaced from the statute book due to the fact the availability is inhuman, irrespective of whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional. The repeal of the anachronistic law contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code might store many lives and relieve the distressed of his suffering.
The Commission is of the view that at the same time as helping or encouraging every other character to (try to) dedicate suicide should no longer pass unpunished, the offence of try and dedicate suicide underneath phase 309 needs to be neglected from the Indian Penal Code.
