S.S.

JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

SESSION- 2019
SUBJECT- INDIAN PENAL CODE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ATTEMPT TO COMMIT
SUICIDE

Submitted To Submitted By
Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi Anudit Ranjan
(Asst. Professor of Law) B.A.LL.B. (7th Sem.)

1
 DECLARATION

I, Anudit Ranjan, do hereby declare that, this dissertation titled “CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE” is an outcome of the research conducted by me under
the guidance of Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi (Asst. Prof. of Law) at S.S. Jain Subodh Law College in
fulfillment for the award of the degree of B.A.LL.B. at the University of Rajasthan. I also declare
that, this work is original, except where assistance from other sources has been taken and
necessary acknowledgements for the same have been made at appropriate places. Further declare
that, this work has not been submitted either in whole or in part, for any degree or equivalent in
any other institution.

ANUDIT RANJAN

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that, the dissertation titled “CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ATTEMPT

SUICIDE” submitted by Anudit Ranjan in fulfillment for the award of the degree of B.A.LL.B.
at S. S. Jain Subodh Law College is the product of research carried out under my guidance and
supervision.

Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi

Asst. Prof. of Law

S.S.Jain Subodh Law College

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I Mr. Anudit Ranjan acknowledge with profundity, my obligation to Almighty God and my
parents for giving me the grace to accomplish my work, without which this project would not
have been possible.

I express my heartfelt gratitude to my respected faculty, Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi (Asst. Prof. of
Law) for providing me with valuable suggestions to complete this dissertation.

I am especially grateful to all my faculty members at S.S. Jain Subodh Law College who have
helped me imbibe the basic research and writing skills.

Lastly, I take upon myself, the drawbacks and limitations of this study, if any.

ANUDIT RANJAN

4
 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

This is a small researched project on Indian Penal Code,

This is the project on “CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ATTEMPT SUICIDE” .There are

various procedure which are carried out for the finishing of this project of sociology and it is
also stated in our project.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Aims and Objectives:

The aim of the project is to present a detailed study of the topic “CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
ATTEMPT SUICIDE” forming a concrete informative capsule of the same with discussing
basic topics.

Research Plan:

For the completion of the project the doctrinal method is been used where it will be concerned
with the documental research irrespective of the consideration of views and perspectives of
society and people as done in the non-doctrinal research method.

I have used the secondary sources of data collection, where the documents have gone through
some interpretation and it has been used further for the study of the research problem.

Scope and Limitations:

In this project the researcher has tried to include different aspects pertaining to the concept of
research, research problem, evaluating research problem and formulating the research problem
and lastly conclusion.

Sources of Data:

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

 Books
 Article
 Websites

5
Table of Contents

 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….7
 Section 309 of IPC.......................................................................................8
 Article 21 of Indian Constitution…………………………………………...…….9
 Constitution Validity of Section 309 IPC………………………………………..11
 Argument in favor of criminalization of Attempting Suicide ….......................13
 Argument against Decriminalization of Attempting Suicide…………………...14
 Conclusion…………………………………………………….........................15
 Bibliography………………………………………………………………….....17

6
Introduction

Life is a stage with one entrance but many exits. Among those, suicide is one exit having a long
ancestry. In 1968, the World Health Organisation defined suicidal act as “the injury with varying
degree of lethal intent” and that suicide may be defined as “a suicidal act with fatal outcome”.
Suicidal acts with non fatal outcome are labelled by World Health Organisation as “attempted
suicide.” In recent times, attempted suicide, though a failed act, has gained more importance than
the suicide which is the successful act because for this there is no offender who can be brought
within the purview of law. In India, attempt to suicide is made punishable under section
309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. A lot of conflicting opinions have generated on the desirability
of retaining or deleting Section 309 of Indian Penal Code because of some contrasting judgments
given by our Courts about whether right to life includes right to die within the meaning of article
21 of the Constitution of India.
One set of people are of the opinion that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a provision
guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of the imagination can
extinction of life be read to be included in protection of life. By declaring an attempt to commit
suicide a crime, the Indian Penal Code upholds the dignity of human life, because human life is
as precious to the State as it is, to its holder and the State cannot turn a blind eye to a person in
attempting to kill himself. Another set of people are of the opinion that the Section 309 of Indian
Penal Code is cruel and irrational because it provides double punishment for a troubled
individual whose deep unhappiness had caused him to try and end his life. It is cruel to inflict
additional legal punishment on a person who has already suffered agony and ignominy in his
failure to commit suicide.

7
Section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Suicide has not been defined anywhere in the IPC. However briefly defined, ‘suicide’ is the
human act of self-inflicted, self-intentioned cessation.1 It has been defined by various
sociologists and psychologists in different ways. Some of the definitions are ‘suicide is the
initiation of an act leading to one’s own death’. “It is synonymous with destruction of the self by
the self or the intentional destruction of one’s self.”2 Thus, suicide is killing oneself intentionally
so as to extinguish one’s life and to leave this world. The Oxford Companion to Law, explains it
as ‘self killing or taking one’s own life’.
Suicide as such is no crime under the code. It is only attempt to commit suicide that is punishable
under this section, i.e., code is attracted only when a person is unsuccessful in committing the
suicide. If the person succeeds, there is no offender who could be brought within the purview of
law. The section is based on the principle that the lives of men are not only valuable to them but
also to the state which protects them.
S. 309 – Attempt 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 or with fine, or with both.”
Attempt must be intentional- The essence of suicide is an intentional self destruction of life.
Thus, if a person takes an overdose of poison by mistake or in a state of intoxication, or in order
to evade capture by his pursuers he is not guilty under this section. Similarly, if a person because
of family discord, destruction, loss of a near and dear relation or other cause of a like nature
overcomes the instinct of self- preservation and decides to take his life, he should not be held
guilty for attempt to suicide. In such a case, the unfortunate man deserves indulgence, sympathy
and consolation instead of punishment. It is under very compelling adverse circumstances that a
person resorts to taking the extreme step of attempting to commit suicide. Some of them are
depressive illness, schizophrenic attitude, physical illness which is intolerable, poverty,
unemployment, frustration, disappointment, dowry problems etc.
There are many ways in which suicide can be committed. The known methods are by drowning,
hanging, poisoning, cutting throat, burning, shooting oneself, hunger strike etc. But it is difficult

1
Encyclopaedia Britannica, (1973) at p. 383
2
The Social Meaning of Suicide(1967): Jack D. Donglas, Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey.

8
to generalize any and conceptualize particular theory because whenever we hear news about
individuals committing suicide, we immediately come up with a conclusion that these people are
depressed, dissatisfied, and unhappy with their lives. However, when popular and rich people
commit suicide, we are left in confusion. Why would someone who is loved and idolized by
many decide to kill himself? Depression may be the main culprit, but there are a lot of things to
consider as well. These include overwhelming pain, grief, and stress; some use it as an escape for
their failure and shortcomings like criminals who are about to be sentenced or caught. However,
there are cases where suicide is an option that is mandatory or required. Thus, most people end
up sacrificing themselves to save the lives of others in unbelievable circumstances. Heroes
during the wartime generally belong to this category.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution

The Constitution of India provides a long list of fundamental rights under Part-III. Article 21 of
our Constitution is one of the important fundamental rights among those rights.
Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: “No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Though the phraseology of Article 21 starts with negative word but the word No has been used
in relation to the word deprived. The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is to
prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to
procedure established by law. It clearly means that this fundamental right has been provided
against the state only. If an act of private individual amounts to encroachment upon the personal
liberty or deprivation of life of other person, such violation would not fall under the parameters
set for the Article 21; in such a case the remedy for aggrieved person would be either
under Article 226 of the constitution or under general law.
But, where an act of private individual supported by the state infringes the personal liberty or life
of another person, the act will certainly come under the ambit of Article 21. Article 21 of the
Constitution deals with the prevention of encroachment upon personal liberty or deprivation of
life of a person. The state cannot be defined in a restricted sense. It includes Government
Departments, Legislature, Administration, Local Authorities exercising statutory powers and so
on so forth, but it does not include non-statutory or private bodies having no statutory powers.

9
Right to Life means the right to lead a meaningful, complete and dignified life. It does not
have restricted meaning. It is something more than surviving or animal existence. The meaning
of the word life cannot be narrowed down. As far as Personal Liberty is concerned, it means
freedom from physical restraint of the person by personal incarceration or otherwise and it
includes all the varieties of rights other than those provided under Article 19 of the Constitution.
Procedure established by Law means the law enacted by the State. Deprived has also wide range
of meaning under the Constitution. These ingredients are the soul of this provision. The
fundamental right under Article 21 is one of the most important rights provided under the
Constitution which has been described as heart of fundamental rights by the Apex Court.
The scope of Article 21 was a bit narrow till 50s as it was held by the Apex Court
in A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras3 that the contents and subject matter of Article 21 and 19
(1)(d) are not identical and they proceed on total principles. In this case the word deprivation was
construed in a narrow sense and it was held that the deprivation does not restrict upon the right to
move freely which came under Article 19 (1) (d). At that time Gopalan’s case was the leading
case in respect of Article 21 along with some other Articles of the Constitution, but post Gopalan
case the scenario in respect of scope of Article 21 has been expanded or modified gradually
through different decisions of the Apex Court and it was held that interference with the freedom
of a person at home or restriction imposed on a person while in jail would require authority of
law.
Whether the reasonableness of a penal law can be examined with reference to Article 19, was the
point in issue after Gopalan’s case in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India4 , the Apex
Court opened up a new dimension and laid down that the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or
unreasonable one. Article 21 imposed a restriction upon the state where it prescribed a procedure
for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty. This view has been further relied upon in a
case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others5
as follows: Article 21 requires that no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
by procedure established by law and this procedure must be reasonable, fair and just and not
arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. The law of preventive detention has therefore now to pass the
test not only for Article 22, but also of Article 21 and if the constitutional validity of any such

3
AIR 1950 SC 27
4
AIR 1978 SC 97
5
AIR 1981 SC 746

10
law is challenged, the court would have to decide whether the procedure laid down by such law
for depriving a person of his personal liberty is reasonable, fair and just.

Thus, Article 21 provides ‘right to live with dignity’ as well as ‘right against cruel and unusual
punishment’ and ‘Due process of law’ laid down in Article 21 has became the source of many
substantive rights and procedural safeguards to the process.

Constitutional validity of Section 309 I.P.C.

The state’s power under section 309, I.P.C. is questioned not only on grounds of morality but
also on the constitutionality of the provision.
1. Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra6
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. The petitioner, a police constable, who became mentally ill after a road
accident attempted to commit suicide by dousing himself with kerosene and then trying to light a
match was prevented and prosecuted under section 309 of I.P.C. In 1987, the Division Bench of
Bombay High Court stuck down sec 309, I.P.C., as ultra vires vide article 14 and 21 of the
constitution which guarantees ‘right to life and personal liberty’. The court said the ‘right to life’
includes ‘right to live’ as well as ‘right to end one’s life’ if one so desires. It was pointed out that
Fundamental Rights have positive as well as negative aspects. For example: Freedom of Speech
and Expression also includes freedom not to speak and to remain silent. If this is so, logically it
must follow that right to live as recognized by article 21 of the constitution also includes a right
not to live or not to be forced to live.
2. State v. Sanjaya Kumar Bhatia7
In 1985, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court while acquitting a young boy who attempted to
commit suicide by consuming ‘Tik Twenty’ strongly advocated for deletion of section 309,
I.P.C. from the statue book and held that “the continuance of section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code is an anachronism unworthy of human society like ours. Instead of sending the young boy

6
(1987) Cr LJ 473 (Bom.)
7
(1985) Cr LJ 931 (Del)

11
to a psychiatric clinic society, gleefully (happily) sends him to mingle with criminals. Medical
clinics are needed for such social misfits; but police and prison never.”
3. Chenna Jagadishwar v. State of A.P.8
The Division Bench of Andhra High court upheld the constitutionality of section 309, I.P.C., and
remarked that “right to life does not necessarily signify a right to die” which is an offence and
therefore section 309 is not violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the constitution. It was also pointed
out that the courts have sufficient power to see that unwarranted harsh treatment or prejudice is
not meted out to those who need care and attention. This, therefore does not violative of article
14.
4. P. Rathinam v. Union of India9
The two petitioners assailed the validity of Section 309 by contending the same to be violative
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the prayer was to declare the section as void. The
additional prayer was to quash the proceedings initiated against the latter petitioner under sec
309. In 1994, the Division Bench of Supreme Court comprising of 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 striking down Section 309, I.P.C., 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-
“…it may result in punishing a person again (doubly) who has suffered agony and would be
undergoing ignominy (humiliation) because of his failure to commit suicide…An act of suicide
cannot be said to be against religion, morality or public policy and an act of attempted suicide
has not baneful effect on society. Further, suicide or attempt to commit it causes no harm to
others, because of which state’s interference with a personal liberty of the concerned person is
called for.”
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

8
(1988) Cr LJ 549 (AP)
9
AIR 1994 SC 1844

12
instance, students who jump into the well after having failed in 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.

Argument in favour of criminalization of attempting suicide10:

 Moral right to die on account of terminal illness- Suicide is one of the ways in which
people can exercise a right to die. Burn victims having severe injuries resort to and claim
that they have a right to die of which any prevention of their intention to die is seen as a
breach of their right to die because it seems impossible to recover from their suffering.
 Losses and shameful acts- Suicide is morally right in the instance of losses or shameful
acts like loss of limb or of physical beauty and the person is not in a position to give any
meaning to his life, i.e., he is under the high level of depression, as no relief can be
procured.
 Liberty- To those who see man as a free agent, suicide is morally right. Man’s life
belongs to him, hence he is at liberty to take it without denial; and no other person has the
right to force their own ideals that life must be lived. Rather, only the individual involved
can make such decision and whatever decision he or she does make, should be respected.
 To save the life of more people- When a person refuses to give information to an enemy
camp in order not to endanger the lives of other; killing himself is morally right.

Argument against decriminalization of attempting suicide11:

 Suicide is unhealthy approach to the problems of life- Most people who opt to die are
somehow begging for help in order to solve the problems of life. “If a man really does not
wish to live, then we think he must be insane, and unfit therefore, to decide his own fate.
It becomes our duty to save him first to save his life and then to cure his melancholy.”

10
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/convincing-arguments-for-suicide-40130.html(last visited on 11th
Nov. 2019
11
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Euthanasiaandassistedsuicide/…/Arguments.aspx(last visited on 11th Nov 2019 )

13
 The depressive situations occasioned by frustration, losses, shame, fear etc. are not
enough to warrant ones to commit suicide. After all there are societal approved means of
coping with human problems not suicide.
 Suicide degrades human worth- Kant and Mappes argue on the immoral nature of
suicide, also that it degrades human worth. Granted that man is an image of God, he
occupies a very special place in creation and to commit suicide reduces his nature below
the level of animal nature hence man should abhor suicide.
 Suicide is against the law of self-preservation- This argument proceeds from man’s
natural instinct of self-preservation so; killing oneself is a direct negation of this natural
law of self. Hence, suicide is always contrary to the natural law and to charity whereby
every man should love himself. Suicide is a terrible aberration which is diametrically
opposed to a well ordered self-love and the natural instinct of self-preservation.Suicide
seen as an escape from overwhelming personal disaster, evil, life misery, frustration, or
dishonour, far from an act of fortitude, is an act of cowardice.
 Suicide destroys the basis of morality- Kant observes that suicide destroys the basis of
morality. He adds, when the subject of morality in one’s person is destroyed, it means
that morality itself is rooted out of existence.
 Suicide violates God’s supremacy- This argument proceeds from the fact that God is
the creator and Lord of life. Man is placed on Earth under certain conditions and for
specific purposes. The act of suicide therefore opposes the very purpose of the creator. To
St. Augustine and others, God prohibits suicide and that we are under obligation to obey
a divine command.
 Utilitarianism- The theory of Utilitarianism given by Bentham based on ‘Pleasure and
Pain’ concept also make ‘suicide an evil’ because the pleasure is obtained only by one
person who commits suicide to escape from the life full of sufferings but the pain is
caused to many members of society who all are dependent on the person who has
committed suicide.

14
Conclusion

It is most intriguing and frustrating to observe that our penal laws which are nothing but the
handiwork of Britishers have by and large remained untouched even after more than 60 years of
independence. What a pity that Britishers have themselves amended their penal laws and
decriminalised attempt to suicide way back in 1961 but we are yet to even deliberate on taking
any action on this decisive issue which subjects an already tormented person to further
punishment and ignominy!
Certainly, we should not be the copycat of Britishers but can we deny that increasingly more and
more countries like Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Oregon and Washington in
USA and Thailand are even legalising euthanasia or mercy killing for terminally ill persons? Can
we deny the decriminalization of attempted suicide by all countries in Europe, North America
and Canada? Can we deny that it is only a handful of countries in the world like Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore and India who still punish attempt to suicide under their penal
laws? Are we still waiting only to be the last country in the world to decriminalise attempt to
suicide?
Let us not forget that Section 309 of I.P.C. tantamount to brazenly punishing a person who is
already suffering endlessly by not only sending him/her to prison for one year but also imposing
fine which only serves to make their life more miserable by further compounding their endless
problems. How can this grave injustice be ever justified? Can an ordinary person even dream to
commit suicide? It is under very compelling adverse circumstances that a person resorts to taking
the extreme step of attempting to commit suicide which must be fully taken into account. Such
people suffering from severe depression need the company of good doctors and not jailors which
we all must also now realise and appreciate
Ours is a democracy which means that it is by the people, of the people and for the people.
Constitution locates power that resides in the people. It is the people’s power for people’s
benefit. Constitution creates rights and duties. All most all our demands get converted into
rights-even our feelings, emotions is governed by the rights and duties we have. As we have got
the right to live life with all dignity so we should also have right to die as when it is necessary by
law in certain situation. Constitution is a social document. It is the society in its political aspect.
We can’t understand its nature without understanding the chief characteristics of the society. If

15
the constitution is such that it has taken into its consideration, the social set up, then only will it
stand the test of time. Constitution and society grows, develops together and gets intertwined in
each other. The constitution takes into account change and developments in the society.
Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Indian penal code is a modern code in every possible sense.
Laws are made for the people and it should be change to meet the aims and aspiration of the
changing society. Ultimately, the aim should be to evolve a consensual and conceptual model
effectively handling the evils without sacrificing human rights. Therefore section 309 should be
deleted from the Indian penal Code because as mentioned 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.
Thus in no case does the punishment serve the purpose and in some cases it is bound to prove
self defeating and counter – productive”. In any case a person should not be forced to enjoy the
right to live to his detriment, disadvantage, and disliking. Further, the “Right to life” under
Article 21 should not include “right to die” because this provision might increase the rates of
suicides in the country and moreover the “Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21
but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore incompatible and
inconsistent with the concept of “right to life”.
The desirability for deletion of Section 309 of I.P.C. is also the view supported by the majority of
states in India. Twenty five Indian states except Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Sikkim have
favoured striking down I.P.C. Section 309 that criminalises attempt to commit suicide by making
it punishable with imprisonment.
In conclusion, it can be said that to resolve this debate, the conflict between the principle of
sanctity of life and the rights of self determination and dignity of an individual is to be resolved
first and right to die should not be generalized but should be exercised as an exception in the
“RAREST OF RARE CASES” like Death Penalty in India.

16
Bibliography
Books:-

Websites:-

17