Abetment of Suicide Sec 306

Sec 306 IPC creates a specific offence and the

liability arises only when the suicide is
committed.
Ex: A person assisting a widow to become sati is
guilty of abetment of suicide under this section.
An abettor cannot escape on the ground that he
expected a miracle to happen and did not
anticipate that the pyre would be ignited by
human agency. (Mohit Pandey Case)
Constitutional Validity of Sec 309

Right to life vis-à-vis Right not to die

In P Rathinam v. UOI AIR 1994 SC The two
writ petitions have been filed one by P.
Rathinam and the other by Nagbhusan
Patnaik. Through these petitions the
validity of sec 309 IPC has been challenged
On the ground that it is violative of Article 14
and 21 of the Constitution. It was observed by
the SC that Sec 309 deserves to be effaced from
the statute book to humanise our penal laws. It
is cruel and irritational provision and it may
result in punishing a person again who has
suffered agony and would be undergoing
ignominy because of his failure to commit
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 suicide
causes no harms to others because of which
state’s interference with the personal liberty of
the concerned person is not called for. Thus Sec
309 violates Article 21 and it is void.
(2) Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC
A five member constitution bench of Apex Court
comprises of Justices J.S. Verma, G.N. Raj, N.P.
Singh, Faizuddin and G.T. Nanawati overruled
decision of 1994 in P. Rathinam’s case.
In this case, the appellant and her husband were
convicted by the Trial Court u/s 306 IPC for
abetting the commission of suicide by kulwant
kaur. In special leave before the apex court the
conviction of the appellants has been challenged
on the ground that Sec 306 IPC is
unconstitutional in view of the judgment in P.
Rathinam’s case wherein sec 309 IPC has been
Held to unconstitutional as violative of Art. 21 of
Constitution. Dismissing the petition, the apex
court held sec 306 IPC as constitutional and said
that ‘right to life’ does not include ‘right to die.’
The court held that sec 306 constitutes a distinct
offence and can exist independently of sec 309
IPC. There is no correlation between the two
sections.
As regards sec 309 IPC is concerned, the court said
that ‘right to life’ guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution did not include the ‘right to die’ or right
to be killed and an attempt to commit suicide. Under
Sec 309 IPC or even an abetment of suicide u/s 306
IPC are well within the constitutional parameters and
are not void or ultravires. Right to life is a natural
right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an
unnatural termination or extinction of life and
And incompatible and inconsistent with the
concept of right to life.