IPC Section 309 - Attempt To Commit Suicide

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) is an important yet highly debated provision that criminalises the action of trying to kill oneself that is attempting suicide. Since this Code dates back to 1860, it conveys the mindset of the colonial era where the act of committing wasn’t just an offence against oneself but also against society and the state. With the nuanced understanding of actions and motivations that push a person towards taking such a grave step,  the attitude of society has transformed significantly around mental health, and individual autonomy, among others. 

In the present scenario, the law has been criticised now and then where the critics have called it obsolete and stated that people who attempt suicide are driven by severe emotional stress, mental agony, mental illness, etc.

In this article, we will understand the significance of Section 309 with practical illustration, judicial perception, and its relevance in the modern-day.

Legal Provision: IPC Section 309- Attempt To Commit Suicide

“309. Attempt to commit suicide.—

Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall he punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.”

Simplified Explanation Of IPC Section 309

According to this law, the act of attempting suicide is a criminal offence. A person who takes this grave step and fails in his attempt is liable to be punished for his act of making an attempt. The punishment can be as follows: 

• Imprisonment - It can be for 1 year or less. The court may only punish with imprisonment and not levy a fine. 

• Fine - It has been left to the discretion of the Court. The court may only penalise the person and not imprison him.

• Both imprisonment and fine - The Court may both sentence and penalize the person as per its discretion. 

In other words, when a person makes an unsuccessful attempt to finish themselves or terminate their life, they can face legal consequences for their action and be penalized for the same. The law, in essence, is intended to deter people from intentionally causing destruction to themselves.

However, from the last three to four decades, this provision has received immense criticism for punishing someone who is already undergoing significant mental, physical or emotional distress. 

Practical Examples Illustrating IPC Section 309

Section 309 of the Code provides the punishment for attempting to commit suicide. Some of the practical examples to understand this provision better are as follows:

1. A 20-year-old college student is facing immense academic pressure to perform well. He has taken an education loan to cover his academic expenses. He needs to maintain a decent GPA to get a job and pay off his loan. However, he succumbs to the pressure and consumes 20+ sleeping pills. His friend finds him unconscious the next day and takes him to the hospital. Since the student failed to end his life and survived, he can be charged under section 309 for making this attempt. 

2. A 50-year-old businessman gets cheated by his business partner and becomes penniless. Creditors and suppliers are pressured to make payments. Owing to immense financial stress, he attempts suicide by jumping into a river. But a nearby fisherman spots him and brings him to the river bank within time. Under Section 309, he can be prosecuted for attempting suicide.

3. A woman is tortured by her in-laws for dowry. She chooses to end years of torture by setting herself on fire. However, her neighbouring lady saves her in time. While she was pushed to take this step under severe mental distress, she can be charged under Section 309 for attempting suicide. 

Application And Relevance Of Section 309 Of IPC In The Modern Day 

There has been a significant shift towards the relevance and application of Section 309 in the modern world. While many term it as outdated, it is still very much a part of the Indian regulatory framework. 

Understanding the application and relevance of Section 309 in the present day and age means dissecting its intersection with evolving concepts of mental health, human rights and public policy.

Mental Health Crisis 

 One of the primary reasons why Section 309 is not considered relevant in today’s scenario is the societal shift towards the issue of mental health. People are realizing that suicide is not a criminal offence committed against oneself, society and the state but a tragic outcome of mental health issues such as bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, or a reaction to significant emotional or social turmoil such as social alienation, peer pressure, and economic hardship.

Increased Preference For Rehabilitation 

In the present scenario, legal and medical frameworks are promoting the need for rehabilitation and care of those individuals who attempt suicide. While Section 309 chooses to punish the person with either imprisonment or fine, and in some cases both, it runs contrary to the changing standards of handling mental health crises. 

Human Rights Approach And Autonomy 

Section 309 of the Code is considered incompatible with modern-day principles of human rights and individual autonomy. 

Notable Case Laws Related To IPC Section 309

P. Rathinam vs. Union of India (1994)

In this case, the Apex Court observed that an individual has the right to choose death and that section 309 is unconstitutional. The differing options of the Hon’ble Court in the matters are mentioned as follows:

1. The court asserted that rather than being a symbol of criminal behaviour, act of attempting suicide is a psychological issue. 

2. The Court stated that Section 309 of the Code should be released. It is so because the modern-day demands the laws to be more humane. It is inhumane and a cruel provision that may lead to an individual being punished twice. The act where one attempts to end his or her life cannot be stated as an act against morality, public policy, or religion and it has negligible negative repercussions on the society. Moreover, when a person commits suicide or makes an attempt to commit suicide, his actions do not harm other individuals. Thus, the State has no means to intrude in the personal liberty of an individual and that he has the right to make certain choices. In the end, the Court remarked that this provision is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

In this matter, the Apex Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not inclusive of the right to die or the right to be killed in its scope. The Court went further and provided clarity on the constitutionality aspect of the Section 309 by stating as follows: 

1. The term ‘sanctity of life’ holds immense importance and should not be perceived lightly or disregarded altogether. By no stretch of the imagination can the extinction of life be interpreted to include the protection of life, as Article 21 protects both personal liberty and the preservation of life. The Court held that it is impossible to interpret Article 21 to include the right to die as a basic right guaranteed therein, regardless of the philosophical basis for permitting an individual to take their own life. Suicide is an artificial ending or extinction of life, and as such, it is incompatible with the concept of the “right to life,” even though it is recognized as a natural right under Article 21.

2. The term ‘life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been understood as life with human dignity. It has been interpreted in such a manner to assign meaning to the term. Any aspect of life that contributes towards increasing its dignity may be read as part of this term, but anything that contributes towards ending it or making it any less dignified is not compatible with the term since it does not support the continuous existence of life. In the same way that life and death are irreconcilable, any right to die is fundamentally incompatible with both. The Supreme Court has ruled that the offence of attempting suicide does not warrant the imposition of a minimum term. The imposition of a fine or term of jail is optional. The Apex Court determined that Section 309 is lawful since it does not violate any constitutional requirements, having taken these factors into account. 

Recent Changes

In 2017, a new law was introduced, namely the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

This Act did not directly decriminalise Section 309 but made an attempt to do it indirectly. Section 115 of this Act talks about  "Presumption of severe stress in case of attempt to commit suicide.

(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code.

(2)The appropriate Government shall have a duty to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person, having severe stress and who attempted to commit suicide, to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to commit suicide.

A thorough reading of this section signifies that any person who makes an attempt to commit suicide shall be presumed to be under severe mental stress or to be suffering from any mental health issues and that he requires care and treatment instead of receiving sentencing or a fine for his action.

No amendments had been made in Section 309 of the Code since its very beginning at the outset. However, Section 309 has been deleted from Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 meaning that the offence of attempting suicide has been decriminalised. However, a new Section 226 has been added in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 that talks about ‘attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain the exercise of lawful power’. It states that “Whoever attempts to commit suicide with the intent to compel or restrain any public servant from discharging his official duty shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.”

Conclusion 

With the deletion of Section 309 from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, we can notice the growing awareness and societal shift in the attitude towards mental health laws. The judicial attitude has undergone significant transformation where it has come to view the attempt of suicide as a consequence of extreme mental or emotional distress.