Suicide under Indian Penal Code,1860

Dhruva Vig

The word suicide has been derived from the Latin term ‘Suicidium’. The word ‘Sui’ means oneself, and ‘cidium’ or ‘caedere’ means a killing. Hence, Suicide refers to the act of taking one’s own life voluntary and intentionally; or self-murder; specifically (law), the felonious killing of oneself; or the deliberate and intentional destruction of one’s own life by a person of years of discretion and a sound mind.

Suicide is a human act which is self-inflicted, self-intentioned and untimely results in cessation of one’s own life, with a conscious wish to do so. According to Black’s Law Dictionary 9^th Edition, the term Suicide^[1] has been defined as “the act of taking one’s own life.­ Also termed self-killing; self-destruction; self-slaughter; self-murder.”

‘Suicide’ in its broadest sense, is generally referred to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative intentional act of the victim themselves, where they are aware of the consequences of such act.

“Felo-de-se” is another Latin used for describing a person who is “felon of himself“, which is an archaic legal term that translates to an illegal act of suicide by an individual.

English common law in the early ages used to consider suicide as a crime against society, and where such persons were held guilty, even though dead, were subjected to punishments after their death including forfeiture of property by the monarch and were given a shameful burial consequently.

The Law Commission of India report on “Humanization and Decriminalization of Attempt to Suicide^[2]” (2008), defines ‘Suicide’ (felo-de-se) as “deliberate termination of one’s own physical existence or self-murder, where a man of age of discretion and compos mentis voluntarily kills himself. Suicide by its very nature is an act of self-killing or self-destruction, an act of terminating one’s own life without the aid or assistance of any other human agency”.

However, Suicide has not been defined anywhere in the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Legal Provisions

Section 107 – Abetment of a thing

“A person abets the doing of a thing, who — First —Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly —Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1 — A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.”

This section talks about abetment of a thing by instigating, by conspiring or by intentionally aiding an act or omission, where any person who commits or aids, engages, or instigates in the commission of such act shall be held liable under such provision.

Illustration:

• A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
• A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
• A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact, and that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

Section 305 – Abetment of suicide of child or insane person

“If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

This section talks about the act of abetting (as under Section 107 of IPC) or instigating or encouraging a person who is below eighteen years of age or is of unsound mind or a person incapable of making a rational decision to end one’s own life, and where commission of such act of abetment is performed, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or for a term not exceeding ten years, or fine, both as the case maybe.

Section 306 – Abetment of suicide

“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

This section talks about the act of abetting (as under Section 107 of IPC) or instigating or encouraging any person to end one’s own life (i.e., suicide), and where commission of such act of abetment is performed, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or fine, both as the case maybe.

Section 309 – Abetment to commit suicide

“Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year 2 [or with fine, or with both.]”

This section talks about the act of attempting to end one’s own life (i.e., suicide), and where commission of such attempt is performed, shall be held punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. However, the same has been decriminalised under the provisions of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (i.e., Section 115), where the factor of severe stress has to be presumed in such cases.

Section 498A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation – For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;

(b)  harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

This section talks about the act of subjecting a married woman to cruelty, where such harassment and misconduct is likely to drive her to end one’s own life and where commission of such cruelty is performed, the person committing such cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustrations

• C instigates Z to commit suicide, and Z commits suicide in consequence thereof, C will be punishable for an offence under Section-306 IPC as an independent offence.
• If in the aforesaid situation, Z does not commit suicide, C may not be liable to be punishable under Section-306 read with 116 IPC.
• However, if Z attempts to commit suicide in the aforesaid situation, C will be punishable under Section-309 read with 109 IPC for abetting an attempt to commit suicide and Z will be liable under Section-309 IPC.

Landmark judgements

• In the case of Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra^[3] it was held that the division bench of Bombay HC was of the opinion that Section 309 is ultra vires to the constitution as it violated Articles 14 and 21, and therefore must be struck down.
• In the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India^[4] it was held that Section 309- Punishment for attempt to suicide under IPC was held violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court believed the provision was cruel and irrational as it provides punishment again to the person who is already affected and needs psychiatric counselling and caused no harm to others.

Attempt to suicide was laid down as act which was not against morality, religion, society, or public policy of preservation of human life. It was also held that right to life under article 21 includes right not to live a forced life that is, to die.

• In the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab^[5] it was held that the apex court differed from its previous judgement, as held Section 309 as not being violative of Article 21 as right guaranteed under the Article does not comprehend right to die. Hence, P. Rathinam v. UOI was overruled. The reasoning behind such decision was that Section 309 confers a wide discretion in the matter of sentencing without prescribing any minimum punishment and without making sentence of imprisonment compulsory.

Also, right to life does not includes right to die as it provides protection of life, a right to live with dignity up to natural death, including a dignified procedure of death, but does not comprehend extinction of life which amounts to unnatural death.

Hence, right to live with dignity does not include right to terminate natural life. Although, a dying person who is terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative stage may hold such right to die with dignity.

• In the case of Nachhattar Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab^[6] it was held that nature of proof is essential when abetment of suicide is assumed by meting out cruelty by an accused. Presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence act cannot be drawn without valid proof.
• In the case of Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh^[7] it was held that a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and deceased, in which the appellant was said to have told the deceased “to go die.” The deceased was found dead two later. It was held that the suicide was not proximate to the quarrel. Hence, suicide was not the direct result of the quarrel even though the appellant had used abusive language and had told the deceased to go and die.

Conclusions

There has been a paradigm shift in application on law from being regulation centric towards being patient centric. Under the provisions of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 section 115 talks about the “Presumption of severe stress in case of attempt to commit suicide” where any person attempting to commit shall be presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said code, unless the same is proved otherwise.

This, in my opinion, this is a progressive step towards the problem of Section 309, which focuses on the help and care aspect, that must be provided to the person attempting to commit such an act, rather than a solitude confinement within the four walls of a prison. Hence, there is a “Call for help” rather than “Call for punishment” at this hour.

1. Black’s Law Dictionary 9^th Ed. Pg. 1571 “suicide” ↑
2. Law Commission of India Report No. 210. Retrieved from https://.nic.in/reports/report210.pdf ↑
3. 1986 SCC OnLine Bom 278 : 1987 Cri LJ 743 ↑
4. (1994) 3 SCC 394 : AIR 1994 SC 1844 ↑
5. (1996) 2 SCC 648 : AIR 1996 SC 946 ↑
6. (2011) 11 SCC 542 ↑
7. (2002) 5 SCC 371 ↑