Introduction
There has been a rampant increase in the number of suicides in these recent years. The attempt of suicide is almost 25 times more than those who die committing suicide. Suicide is an act where the person ties himself/herself to end their respective lives. In Indian scenario, the cases of suicide were 131,666 in 2014; 133,623 in 2015; and 230,314 in 2016.
Attempt to die by suicide is defined as a nonfatal and self-injurious behaviour with an intent to die. For every death by suicide, on an average, 25 people attempt to die by suicide. As per the ratio, in 2016 alone, approximately 5.75 million people attempted to die by suicide in India. Attempts to die by suicide can be classified into (I) severe, leading to incapacity. (ii) Non-severe, with full recovery in the short term. As per WHOM, in 2016; 17% of the persons who attempted to die by suicide belong to the severe category, i.e. 977,500 persons, and the remaining 83%, i.e., 4.77 million persons belonged to the non-severe category
Legal implications
According to Section 115 of the Mental Health Care, it decriminalised Section 309 of IPC. Thereby if it is proved that a person is suffering from any sorts of stress that forced him to commit suicide, he will not be charged. It also aims towards providing health care facility and physiological help to such people.
In the majority of cases, the person attempts suicide due to some mental distress. If that is proved, he will not be detained under Section 309. But if he commits suicide for absurd reasons like expressing his love, getting attention or trying to have a near to death experience. He will be convicted under Section 309 of the act.
Article 21
Article 21 stars with a negative word, “No” that indicates deprivation. The article focuses on the life and personal liberty of every human being; unless a proper procedure by law is not established. If any person act is of such kind that encroaches the life personal liberty or deprives someone else’s life. That will not lead to violation of article 21 and the aggrieved party will get relief. Under Article 226 or the general law. In case if such actions of individual are supported by the state like Govt Dep, Legislation, etc. Then Article 21 will come into force. Right to Life means the right to lead a meaningful, complete and dignified life.
This means that mere existence is not enough. Every man has a right to live and enjoy his life with dignity and thus no one can narrow the meaning of life. Personal Liberty is concerned, it means freedom from physical restraint of the person by personal incarceration. Or otherwise. It includes all the varieties of rights other than those provided under Article 19 of the Constitution taking up the broader sense of Right to life. Right to die should also be a part of Article 21. But it seems contradictory as Sec 309 of IPC makes attempt to suicide offences indicating that ones life is precious not only to him but also to the state.
Indian Penal Code
Section 309 of the IPC, on the other hand, states that; whosoever tries to take his own life will be given simple imprisonment of one year. Or along with fine, totally criminalizing attempt to suicide. Hence the section remains dissatisfactory and also discriminates. After surviving an attempt to take one’s life, going through all sorts of mental and physical trauma. Then being put behind the bars is the least one can expect. That only leads to torture, mental agony and causes permanent harm to the person’s dignity.
In the case of State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia, [(1985) Cr LJ 931 (Del)], the HC of Delhi held that continuing with sec 309 is not truly appropriate for a civilized society and the said section should be removed for once and all. Though Section 115 of MHCA 2017, suspenders the implication of Sec 309 of IPC this has no legal effect.
In the 210 Report of law commission, it was held in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Bariya. The Delhi HC made an observation sating that; it was quite absurd that a man who attempts to take his own life is being sent to imprisonment. A young man who got driven by emotion was forced to end his life. It will now have to be treated as a criminal. It was further stated that just like the freedom to do business and trade. Also inside freedom not to do business, and freedom of speech and expression. It also means freedom to remain silent, in the same way, Article 21 would also include the right to end one’s life.
Also, Section 309 does not define suicide which itself revolves the section. A man attempts suicide for various reasons. There is no single reason for various people commit suicide. So how can they all be treated under one ambiguous section. It was further stated that if the purpose of this section is to avoid further suicides. It fails to do so as no deterrence and stop a person from attempting suicide again if for once and for all he gives up his will to live. Rather it just makes the person miserable.
In the report, it was also mentioned that clause 126 of the IPC (Amendment Bill) 1978. It was introduced in the council of states on 11.12.1972 to remove section 309. It also got its mention in “notes of Clause’ that the section was harsh and not justified. The person committing suicide deserves sympathy and not punishment. But due to the dissolution of Lok Sabha in 1972, the bill lapsed and said changes could not be made.
Judicial Scenario of Suicide
Accidental or Unintentional
K is in distress and he consumes sleeping pills to attempt suicide. He will be held guilty for an attempt to suicide under section 309 of Indian Penal Code, only if he survives. In the case of Emperor v. Dwaaraka Poonja [BOML 146; 1912] Mr Poonja decided to escape the police by jumping into the well. He was not charged with the above-mentioned section. Thus if a Peron consumes a poisonous thing by mistake. Or under the influence of alcohol, or jumps into a river to escape it will not be considered as an attempt to suicide. In the case of the court help the defendant not guilty stating that. The person is already in pain and he deserves sympathy and not punishment. Hence unintentional and reckless decisions to commit suicide due to family, monetary reasons should not be convicted.
Protestor Hunger Strike
In case of protest and hunger strikes if the protestor dies puts his life at stake due to starvation. Clearly refusing to eat anything, it will be considered as an attempt to suicide. In the case of Ram Sunder v. State, the accused was employed at a psychiatric hospital in Bareilly, India, went on a hunger strike. When he was suspended from his duty and to protest that he went straight on hunger strike. Initially, he was arrested under the attempt to suicide. But later the Allahabad HC said that there was not enough evidence to prove that he was on strike.
Mental Illness
In the year 1981, a police constable got injured and had head injuries due to which he diagnosed with schizophrenia. Due to this mental illness, he tried to commit suicide and was arrested. In 1987, the Honorable High Court of Bombay, in Maruti Shripati Dubal v. the State of Maharashtra held that the constable was not guilty. As the reason of his attempt was his mental illness. He was not in a proper state of mind and he needs psychiatric help and not imprisonment. Putting a mental illness sufferer behind the bars will only escalate his pain. It could provoke him to do the same again.
Euthanasia
A landmark judgment was given by the Supreme Court in March 2011, in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaugh v. Union of India, [(1994) 3 SCC 394] in which the judges made passive euthanasia legal, a process in which the life support is removed or medications are stopped if the person goes into a vegetative state but also held that giving a person such medications to take his life which is known as active euthanasia is still illegal.
Abetment for suicide
Abetment to Death by Suicide
Death by suicide an offence has no mention in the IPC. Hence to fill up this gap another section. 306 has been enacted which states that if a person dies due to suicide. Whoever abets his commission of suicide will be given imprisonment of 10 years along with fine.
Abetment of an Attempt to Die by Suicide
Section 108 of IPC states that any abetment of an offence is an offence itself. For example, if X instigates Y to incite Z to die by suicide. If Z dies then Y will be held liable. But as Y was himself instigated by X then X will also be an abettor and will be held liable under Section 108,109, and 116 of IPC thus making X as an abettor and, Y the main culprit whose provocation leads to Z ‘s death.
Section 109 IPC states that “Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment; and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment; be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.” Moreover, according to Section 116 IPC; “Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall. If that offence is not committed in consequence of the abetment. He will be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence for a term; which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.”
But if in case z does not die by suicide, then X will not be held liable under section 306 of IPC. But will be published under section 109 and 116.
In the case of Satvir Singh v. the State of Punjab [(2001), 8 SCC 633] tried committing suicide and failed to do so, the court held her husband and in-laws liable for abetment of suicide under section 306 and 116.
In another case of Karnataka HC, Mrs K. Kamala vs. the State of Karnataka, MR V.G Maiya was convicted for abetment for an attempt to die by suicide under section 309 and 109.
Abet and Abetment of an Attempt to Die by Suicide
K instigated J to abet the commission of suicide. Now, abetment to commit suicide is punishable and therefore is an offence. As such, A abetted an offence and became an abettor. Section-108 will come into the picture as an offence has been abetted. Therefore, even if the abetted offence, i.e., punishable under Section-306 does not stand committed; A will be liable under Section 309/109/116 too.
Constitutional Validity of Attempt to Suicide
Maruti Shripati Dubal v. the State of Maharashtra [(1987) Cr LJ 473 (Bom.)]
In this case, the question of a man’s will to take his own life came in front of the court. This is the case in which first time it came for the consideration before the court that whether a person has a right to die. A police constable suffered certain injuries after a road accident due to which he was mentally ill and to get rid of that illness, he poured kerosene on his head and was about to light a fire when he was stopped by a person hence case was filed against him under Section 309 of I.P.C.The bench in Bombay High Court in 1987 decided to strike down section 309 as it was violative of Article 14 and Article 21 that ensues right to life and personal liberty.
It was also stated that articles have two aspects. If the freedom of speech is given to a person then he also has the right to remain silent. Hence Article 21 should also ensure that a person is free to end his life peacefully the way he/ she desires
State v. Sanjaya Kumar Bhatia [(1985) Cr LJ 931 (Del.)]
Another case came in the year 1985 when a young boy tried to commit suicide by consuming Tic Twenty poison. Hence the boy was arrested under section 309. The judges were in strong favour of removing section 309 calling it as “anachronism unworthy of human society”. Judges further added that the boy should be given psychiatric help and should not be sent behind the bars with hardcore criminals. Such people require medical assistance, not police or prisoners.
Chenna Jagadishwar v. the State of A.P [(1988) Cr LJ 549 (AP)]
In this case, the judge gave a different opinion and the divisional bench of André Pradesh upheld the constitutionality of Section 309 and held that the right to life to life does not importantly The Division Bench of Andhra High court upheld the constitutionality of section 309, I.P.C., and remarked that right to life may not necessarily mean right to take one’s life. as it is an offence and thus the section does not violate Article 19 and 21 It was further stated that the courts are capable enough to ensure that people who need due care and attention from the society are not punished or discriminated in anyways hence 209 was not violative of Article 14.
P. Rathinam v. Union of India [AIR 1994 SC 1844]
There were two petitioners who questioned the validity section 309, demanding it to be declared invalid as it violated Article 21 and 14 hence the reason to declare them void was a big enough reason to do so. They also requested got quash the legal proceedings that were started by the petitioner. The SC Judges, Justices R.M. Sahai, and B.L. Hansaria approved the Judgment of Bombay and Delhi High Courts but overruled the Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment by contending that the Section 309 is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution.
While giving the judgement off striking down Section 309, I.P.C. and the Apex Court said ‘it is cruel and irrational provision violative of Article 21 of the constitution.’ Expanding the scope of Article 21, the court upheld that, ‘right to life’ include ‘right not to live a forced life’; i.e., to end one’s life if one so desires. The court went on to say that-
“The Court further said 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 jump into the well after having failed in the examination but survive; girls and boys who resent arranged marriage and prefer to die, but ultimately fail, do not deserve punishment; rather soft words, wise counselling of a psychiatrist and not stony dealing by a jailor following harsh treatment meted out by a heartless prosecutor.”
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR [1996 SC 1257]
This is one of the very important cases in Section 309. A bench of five judges in 1996 of the Supreme Court consisting Iustices J.S. Vera, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, Faizauddin and G.T. Nanavati overruled its decisions of 1994 in P. Rathinam/ Naghbhusan Patnaik and upheld the constitutionality of Section 309. The petitioner and her husband were arrested by the court under Section 306 for abatement of the suicide of an individual named Kulwant Kaur.
The petitioner hence challenged the Section 309 of IPC, stating that it was unconstitutional taking up the judgement given in the year 1944 where it was held that section 309 was violative of the constitution as it violated Article 21. The court dismissed the petition stating that it is not correct to view right to life along with the right to die or takes one’s life inherently. If a person has the right to life it means that a person has to live with dignity unless his life ends naturally. Death with dignity should not be understood with any unnatural existence of life and reducing one’s span of life. In the progression of the above, the constitutionality of section 309 of the I.P.C. which makes “attempt to suicide” an offence, was upheld, overruling the judgment in P. Rathinam’s case.
It was further held that Section 306 was also not unconstitutional and thinking that the right to life does not mean the right to die. Taking up one’s life does not include in the protection of one’s life. The Court also held that Section 306 is a different offence and has to be treated separately from section 309. Article 21 ensures that right to life and not right to die or right to be killed and thus section 309 of an attempt to suicide and section 306 of abatement of the suicide of the Indian Penal Code are consistently compulsive and hence are not void or invalid. It was further stated that Right to life is a right given to a person naturally by Article 21 but taking away one’s own life is unnatural and is neither compatible nor consistent with the right to life.
C. A. Thomas Master v. Union of India, [2000 Cri LJ 3729]
An 80-year-old man who was a teacher, retired from his job and state that he has happily lived his life and that now he wanted to end his life according to his wishes since he leads a satisfying life. He further added that he has completed his mission of life and stated that voluntarily killing oneself was not committing suicide. The Kerala High Court held that there is no discrimination between committing suicide and endings one’s life even if one wants to end his life on his terms no matter what the reason is, that would come in the ambit of section 309 and 306. Any difference between someone taking his life because he is suffering or in mental pain and another person who wants to commit suicide because he has lived his life to the fullest is pointless and vague.
Attempt to Suicide Laws in Other Countries
England– before 1961, attempt to suicide was a crime in England but after passing of the Suicide Act 1961, it was held that attempt to suicide is no more an offers
Australia – Earlier assisted form of suicide was legal in Australia but not anymore. Back in 1995 but later in the year 1995, Australia became the first country to pass a law relating to euthanasia named the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. A device was invented by Dr Philip Nitschke which leads to the death of 4 patients. Later in 1997, the Australian Federal Parliament overturned the previous law.
Ireland– Any kind of assisted suicide and euthanasia is not permitted in Ireland but any kind of attempt to suicide is not a criminal offence and harming oneself is not considered as an attempt to suicide generally
Netherlands–Netherlands laws do not make a presence and encouraging the person who is attempting suicide, nor a person will be convicted if he provides information to someone who is committing suicide. But any kind of participation or involvement in the execution of suicide like providing dangerous weapons is illegal. But suicide assisted by doctor’s help is an exception.
North Korea–North Korea has very strict laws relating to suicide. The laws are absurd as the relatives of the one who has died will be punished and if in case the person survives, he will also be punished
Russia–In Russia of (Article 110 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) provoking anyone to commit suicide, giving them treats, providing them cruel treatment is a crime and the person is imprisoned for 5 years.
Scotland– Scotland had no law until in the year 1961. Later when the suicide act passed in 1961 which made an attempt to suicide as no offence in the eye of law. But it is considered as an offence because it leads to disturbing peace. Anyone who helps another in the commission of suicide will be charged with sections of murder, culpable homicide, or no offence depending upon the circumstances of the said case
Singapore–In Singapore, a person who attempts to commit suicide can be imprisoned for up to one year.
United States- Previously many states various states listed the act of suicide as a felony, but these policies were sparsely enforced. In the late 1960s, eighteen U.S. states lacked laws against suicide. By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but every state had laws declaring it to be a felony to aid, advice or encourage another person to commit suicide. By the early 1990s, only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification. In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten “common law crime,” as stated in Blackstone’s Commentaries.
As a common-law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the late suicidal person’s family in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been “of unsound mind.” That is, the suicide must be proven to have been an involuntary act of the victim for the family to be awarded monetary damages by the court. This can occur when the family of the deceased sues the caregiver (perhaps a jail or hospital) for negligence in failing to provide appropriate care.
Conclusion
It is quite disturbing to see that the penal laws that were farmed by the British, before independence are still prevalent inspire of them being absurd and ambiguous. As mentioned above, England itself ahs decriminalised attempt to suicide yet we still stick to such improper law even in the 21st century. Criminalizing an attempt to suicide violates the human rights of a person given to his in general. By putting him behind the bars, all we do it increase his mental agony and pain he is already suffering with.
He deserved the societies due care, love, empathy rather he is treated as a criminal. What are we expecting to do to him do to a person by putting him with other hardcore criminals? Not only that, but India should also take an example of other countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, the USA who are steeping towards legalization mercy killing for those who are ill for a long time. Counted like Europe, North America, Europe have decriminalised attempt to suicide. As if imprisonment was not enough, a fine is also being imposed on him to make his life even more miserable. How can such a section be justified which is doing nothing but just adding on the misery of the sufferer?
We are democratic and our constitution is for the people, of the people and by the people. What all rights have been given by the Indian Constitution is highly important as they cover various aspects of human life. Human life is dynamic hence the law needs to be a bit dynamic to prevail in the changing society and the Indian Penal Code fails to do so by criminalising attempt to suicide thus such a law should be removed from the IPC as quoted in Maruti Shripati Dubal that “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”.
Hence nowhere the given punishment fulfils the objective and is self-defeating. If a person is free to live his life on his terms, he should not be forced to live a life with mental pain and suffering. The state is bound to assist such people as the state is considered as the guardian. Mental illness has become a major issue in today’s world and decriminalising attempt to suicide will be a beneficial step towards reducing the stigma related to mental health also.
0 Comments