DECRIMINALISATION OF SECTION-309 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

BY-SOHAM PRADEEP KALE

\
ABSTRACT

The following paper demonstrates the need for Section-309 of Indian Penal Code to be
decriminalised.1Though the Section-309 states that “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”, it should also
be stated in this connection that in many countries attempt to commit suicide is regarded more as
a manifestation of a deceased condition of mind deserving of treatment and care rather than as an
offence to be visited with punishment.
It must be understood that, contrary to what Section 309 hopes to accomplish, a determined
suicide cannot ever be stopped by the threat of a single year's worth of jail time, a fine, or both. It
is past due for us to remove the section from the Indian penal code.

INTRODUCTION

Although attempt to suicide is a criminal offence in India, it is high time the section-309 gets
decriminalised.Section 309 just makes a person suffer more even if they unluckily live after
attempting suicide. Law is something that is supposed to be in the society's favour; it should push
the society to improve in every element of life.
2
Justice B.L Hansaria in P.RATHINAM VS UNION OF INDIA, stated “we state that Section
309 of the Penal Code deserves to be effaced from the statute book to humanise our penal laws.
It is a cruel and irrational provision, and it may result in punishing a person again (doubly) who
has suffered agony and would be undergoing ignominy because of his failure to commit suicide.
Then an act of suicide cannot be said to be against religion, morality or public policy, and an act
of attempted suicide has no baneful effect on society. Further, suicide or attempt to commit it
causes no harm to others, because of which State's interference with the personal liberty of the
persons concerned is not called for.”
Instead of making someone suffer for their own misfortunes, I believe it is our duty to assist
those who are in need at a point in their lives when they decide to make such critical decisions
and believe that dying will put an end to their pain and agony.

1
The INDIAN PENAL CODE by RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL.[23rd Edition]
2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1501595/
In the judgement of P.RATHINAM VS UNION OF INDIA it was also said that “Section 309
violates Article 21, and so, it is void. May it be said that the view taken by us would advance not
only the cause of humanisation, which is a need of the day, but of globalisation also, as by
effacing Section 309, we would be attuning this part of our criminal law to the global
wavelength.”

However, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court later overturned this decision in Gian Kaur
v. State of Punjab (AIR 1996 SC 946) and held that section 309 is not in violation of Article 21
because it cannot be said that Article 21 can be construed to include the "right to die" as a part of
the fundamental right guaranteed therein.

It turns out that the Rajya Sabha's passage of the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978,
which provided for the omission of section 309, does not even imply that decriminalisation of
section 309 was never attempted. Sadly, the Lok Sabha was dissolved and the bill expired before
it could be approved by the Lok Sabha.

3
The 210th report of the Law Commission of India made another attempt to repeal Section 309,
stating, “In view of the views expressed by the World Health Organization, the International
Association for Suicide Prevention, France, decriminalization of attempted suicide by all
countries in Europe and North America, the opinion of the Indian Psychiatric Society, and the
representations received by the Commission from various persons, the Commission has resolved
to recommend to the Government to initiate steps for repeal of the anachronistic law contained in
section 309, IPC, which would relieve the distressed of his suffering. It needs mention here that
only a handful of countries in the world, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore and
India have persisted with this undesirable law.”

Even in Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court held that
section 309, IPC is ultra vires the Constitution being violative of Articles 14 and 21 thereof and
must be struck down.The High Court also noted that there is nothing wrong with wanting to die,
and thus the right to die. Different methods of ending one's life may be unnatural, such as
starvation or strangulation, but the desire itself is not abnormal. Suicide or an attempt to commit
suicide is an exception to the norm, but it is not something that is natural in and of itself.

3
210th Report of LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher used a DOCTRINAL METHOD of research in order to gather information. This
involved taking help from various case laws and articles.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper is to explore the rationale for decriminalising Section 309 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is hoped that this will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue,
and may help to sway public opinion in favour of reform. This paper has aimed to provide a
comprehensive overview of the arguments in favour of decriminalising Section 309. However, it
is important to remember that the decision on whether or not to reform the law is ultimately up to
the Indian public.

HYPOTHESIS

Death is inevitable. It is a simple reality. Normal life does not include suicide. This circumstance
is unusual. But if someone has the right to enjoy their life, they shouldn't also be made to live it
against their will, to their disadvantage, or in a way they find unpleasant. It is improper and
immoral to demand that someone live a painful life and go through agony if they are suffering
from a serious illness or an incurable disease. Humanity is being insulted by it. Right to life
refers to the ability to live peacefully as a regular person. The idea that a person shouldn't be able
to pass away with the intention of dodging his social obligations is one that can be understood.
He must carry out all of his obligations to fellow citizens. However, if his true desire is to leave
the world and he is unable to take normal care of his body or has lost all of his senses, he should
not be forced to endure torture and a painful life. In such circumstances, it would be cruel to
prevent his death.

To live, however, would mean to live with dignity up to the end of one's natural life. As a result,
having the right to live would also include having the right to pass away peacefully at the end of
one's life; having the right to an unnatural death, which shortens one's natural lifespan, should
not be confused with having the right to live.
Whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional, repealing the anachronistic law found in Section
309 of the Indian Penal Code would spare many lives and put an end to the suffering of those
who are already in pain.

SCOPE OF RESEARCH

The main goal of the study is to raise awareness of the persisting, out-of-date laws among the
people of our nation. The primary goal of the research paper is to raise awareness about the fact
that suicide attempts shouldn't be treated as crimes. As per not only my opinion but also taking
into account the opinions of the honourable justices in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, Maruti
Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, and many other similar cases, Section 309 of the Indian
Penal Code violates both Article 21, which is about PROTECTION OF LIFE AND LIBERTY,
and Article 14, concerning the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

To make our criminal laws more palatable, section 309 of the Penal Code should be removed
from the statute book. It is a cruel and irrational provision that could lead to the punishment of a
person again (doubly), even though they have already endured pain and would have been
humiliated had they not refrained from committing suicide.

It needs to be determined that "life" in Article 21 refers to life with human dignity in order to
give it meaning and content. Any aspect of life that elevates it may be read into it, but not one
that diminishes it and is thus incompatible with life's continued existence, eroding the right itself.
If there is a “right to die,” it is innately incompatible with the “right to life”, just as “death with
life” is.

The paper also focuses on spreading the word regarding “right to die” be given equal importance
as “right to life”, as a man committing suicide if thereby is unsuccessfull in doing so, should not
be made to face criminal charges, rather he should be offered help and a chance to a new life.
Why shouldn't “right to die” be considered natural as well if the law regards “right to life” as
such? Although there are many unnatural reasons why people attempt suicide, the decision to do
so is still made by the person making the attempt because only he is aware of the suffering and
agony he has been going through, and if he believes that taking his own life will put an end to his
suffering and allow him to pass away in dignity, then so be it.
CONCLUSION

Criminal law must not be overly zealous in its application, and it should only be used when it can
be demonstrated to be an appropriate and efficient tool for resolving the intended wrong.
Therefore when a troubled individual tries to end his life, it would be cruel and irrational to visit
him with punishment for his failure to die. It is his deep unhappiness which causes him to try to
end his life.

A man may kill himself for a variety of reasons and under various conditions. In every situation,
the goal is to be freed from the various real or imagined calamities that person is experiencing. If
he is successful, it is considered deliverance; if he is unsuccessful, it is considered an offence. So
the question that should arise here is, IS SURVIVAL AN OFFENCE?, Shouldn't the person who
avoided death receive the assistance they require?, instead, we're busy trying him and making
what he did into a crime, which only increases the burden on his shoulders. What is there to
ensure that they won't act similarly in a situation like this?

Therefore, there is no justification for a section to exist that is directly at odds with Articles 21
and 14, which would only serve to make the already miserable situation even worse.