SECTION 309 OF THE IPC: ATTEMPT TO SUICIDE

This article was written by Manasvita Tejsi, a student of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.

INTRODUCTION

A person who decided to end his life because of some reason they thought was complex and was worth ending their life over, fails in doing so; they spend the next year in a correctional facility because a section in the law made in 1860 said so. Suicide if the act of taking one’s own life. It claims about 800,000 lives, around the globe, each year. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), people who attempt suicide are usually individuals with mental disorders or a part of community which feels neglected or threatened. The former can be inclusive of people who are diagnosed with depression, drug/alcohol abusers, schizophrenic people, anxiety etc.; while the latter part may include people who may be refugees, low wage labourers, farmers, prisoners and the LGBTQ community.[1] In India attempt to suicide is considered a crime according to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which says — “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 1[or with fine, or with both].”[2] This section criminalizes an attempt to take own’s life. This instates if the person attempting suicide does not succeed in doing so, they will be punished with imprisonment or fine. An individual already battling mental health issues and/or their position in the society.

THE DEBATE OF RIGHT TO DIE

In 1994, P. Rathinam v Union of India and another[3], was a landmark case. The petition was filed and it questioned the justification of Section 309 of the India Penal Code being in violation of Article 14 — “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”[4]

; and Article 21— “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”[5] of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court concluded that Right to Die can be interpreted by Article 21 and Section 309 of the IPC was unconstitutional. A person who is not content with his life has as much right to end his life as he has to live it. In Gian Kaur v State of Punjab[6], it was held that euthanasia and assisting someone is a suicide is not legal. Here, abetment was in question. It was argued that if attempting suicide was not a crime, then abetment would not be considered as a crime. Supreme court overruled the ruling it made in P. Rathinam v Union of India. It was held that Article 21 does not include the Right to Die. Section 309 was made constitutional. In Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India[7], Aruna Shanbaug was in a perpetual vegetative state and the court did not allow withdrawal of medical attention but it did discuss and it legalized passive euthanasia. This helped in achieving some middle ground between Right to Live and Right to Die.

Recently in 2018, in the case of Common Cause v Union of India[8], Supreme Court held that Right to Die with dignity is a fundamental right. It also talked about living wills. It was argued that terminally ill patients should not be put under medical treatment if it is not in their best interests. They would also be given the discretion to execute their living wills which means a written statement which contains the person’s desire in furtherance of their medical treatment if they, in future, are not able to consent or express what they desire. Supreme Court held that it was an individual’s own bodily right to execute their living will.

AMENDMENT OF THE PROVISION

The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 has made attempt to suicide non- punishable. This was a huge step towards regarding that suicide survivors need a space to provide them with quintessential mental health facilities or simply a zone where they feel safe and not a correctional facility. But the law still exists in the Indian Penal Code and the need for amendment is looming.

The amendment can be twofold; incorporating that people who go on hunger strikes and the threat to kill themselves to make the government act on or not act on any provision/statute and do some act in the furtherance of the same, can be punished under the said section; this section may also include people who threaten people to commit or omit a deed by threatening to commit suicide. The former part may include activists or politicians and can be made as a provision where the aim of the individual is purely government related. The latter part may include any individual who threatens to commit suicide in any other area; this could include their work/educational spaces (schools and colleges) and domestic life. In the case of Chikkam Ammiraju and Ors. v. Chikkam Seshamma and Anr.[9], appellant threatened to commit suicide if his deed was not honored; the respondent was the wife and their son. The court ruled in the favour of the respondents as this amounted to coercion. IPC contains the provisions for attempt to suicide and not threat of suicide. The latter will be more quintessential in IPC as it provides punishment for those who use suicide as a weapon. Suicide should not be taken lightly and specially in the cases where individuals threaten to abuse it. In the above case, the appellant’s case was dismissed because there was no free consent.

In Rajendra Bhat, M. v. State of Karnataka[10], the petitioner was a college student and had failed in one subject. He requested for a re-evaluation; it was not granted. The petitioner went on hunger strike; the court ruled in his favour, under Section 309, as the mens rea was not established. The amendment in Section 309 would help in preventing such cases. The mere threat of suicide to make the second party do something they would not normally agree to, is not legally justified. This amounts to coercion and negation of free consent.

CONCLUSION

Amending the law and punishing someone who may want to extort something from an entity will help in drawing a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable rules in the society. There are several other ways to bring about a change, if it is the instance of hunger strike against government policies; peaceful protests and logical arguments may aid in the same. But simply the threat is not enough in this case; an act or omission of doing an act in the furtherance of their motives might be necessary. If the threat is made in order to get the second party to do something or omit from doing something in work spaces or in their domestic life, this will be detrimental to free will. Either way threat of suicide in order to get an act or omission done, should be legally flawed. On the other hand, attempting suicide out of mental health issues or personal issues is different. The probability that the person would survive was less and after recovery, a case is made against them for taking their life; this would not only disturb the person further but it would not help in the furtherance of attempting and achieving a better mental health goal or solving their problems. This would require attention for therapy and possibly even rehabilitation. Sending this individual to a correctional facility is not the answer.

[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide

[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 309

[3] P. Rathinam v Union of India and another, (1994) SCC (3) 394 (India)

[4] INDIA CONST. art. 14

[5] INDIA CONST. art. 21

[6] Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, (1996) SCC (2) 648 (India)

[7] Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 (India)

[8] Common Cause v Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 (India)

[9] Chikkam Ammiraju and Ors. v. Chikkam Seshamma and Anr., (1918) ILR 41 Mad 33 (India)

[10] Rajendra Bhat, M. v. State of Karnataka, (1985) KAR H.C. 112 (India)