156th law report:

In 1995, pursuant to the reference made by the Government of

India, the Law Commission undertook a comprehensive revision
of the Indian Penal Code, with special reference to the Indian
Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978, in the light of the changed
socio-legal scenario. The 156th Report of the Law Commission,
submitted in August, 1997, after the judgment in Gian Kaur,
recommended retention of section 309, IPC. Chapter VIII of the
said Report is reproduced below:
SUICIDE: ABETMENT AND ATTEMPT
Section 306: Abetment of Suicide
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code penalises abetment of
suicide. It reads as:
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 not
exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The constitutionality of section 306 was challenged in Smt.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab. Upholding the constitutionality of
section 306, the Supreme Court held that section 306 enacted
a distinct offence which is capable of existence independent of
section 309. The Court observed:
Section 306 prescribes punishment for abetment of suicide
while section 309 punishes attempt to commit suicide.
Abetment of attempt to commit suicide is outside the purview
of section 306 and it is punishable only under section 309 read
with section 107, IPC. In certain other jurisdictions, even though
attempt to commit suicide is not a penal offence yet the
abettor is made punishable. The provision there provides for
the punishment of abetment of suicide as well as abetment of
attempt to commit suicide. Thus even where the punishment
for attempt to commit suicide is not considered desirable, its
abetment is made a penal offence. In other words assisted
suicide and assisted attempt to commit suicide are made
punishable for cogent reasons in the interest of society. Such a

provision is considered desirable to also prevent the danger

inherent in the absence of such a penal provision.
In England and Wales, the Suicide Act of 1961 has abrogated
the rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit
suicide (S.1). Section 2(1) of the Act imputes criminal liability
for complicity in anothers suicide. It reads:
2(1).- A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the
suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide,
shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding fourteen years.
II. Section 309 ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE
Section 309 of IPC punishes attempt to commit suicide with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year
or with fine or with both.
The Law Commission in its Forty Second Report had examined
whether attempt to commit suicide be retained as a penal
offence. The Commission referred to the Dharma Sastras which
legitimized the practice of taking ones life in certain situations
and also referred to the provisions of Suicide Act, 1961 in
Britain which decriminalized the offence of attempt to commit
suicide. After examining these views, the Commission
recommended that section 309 is harsh and unjustifiable and it
should be repealed. In pursuance of the recommendations of
the Law Commission, clause 131 of the Bill omits section 309
from IPC.
Subsequently, there have been significant judicial
developments. The Delhi High Court in State v. Sanjay Kumar
Bhatia speaking through Sachar J, as he then was, for the
Division Bench observed that the continuance of section 309 is
an anachronism and it should not be on the statute book.
However, the question of its constitutional validity was not
considered in that case.
Soon thereafter the Bombay High Court in Maruti Shripati Dubal
v. State of Maharashtra speaking through Sawant J., as he then
was, examined the constitutional validity of section 309 and

held that the section is violative of Article 14 as well as Article

21 of the Constitution. The Section was held to be
discriminatory in nature and also arbitrary and violated equality
guaranteed by Article 14. Article 21 was interpreted to include
the right to die or to take away ones life. Consequently it was
held to be violative of Article 21.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court also considered the
constitutional validity of section 309 in Chenna Jagadeeswar v.
State of Andhra Pradesh. Amareshwari J., speaking for the
Division Bench, rejected the argument that Article 21 includes
the right to die. The court also held that the courts have
adequate power to ensure that unwarranted harsh treatment
or prejudice is not meted out to those who need care and
attention. The court also negatived the violation of Article 14.
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of
section 309 in P. Rathinam v. Union of India with reference to
Articles 14 and 21. The Court considered the decisions of the
Delhi, Bombay and Andhra Pradesh High Courts and disagreed
with the view taken by Andhra Pradesh High Court on the
question ofviolation of Article 21. Agreeing with views of the
Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court observed:
On the basis of what has been held and noted above, we state
that section 309 of the Penal Code deserves to be effaced from
the statute book to humanize 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 States
interference with the personal liberty of the persons concerned
is not called for. We, therefore, hold 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 humanization, which
is a need of the day, but of globalization also, as by effacing
section 309, we would be attuning this part of criminal law to
the
global wavelength.

But this view of Supreme Court was overruled by a larger Bench

in Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab wherein Verma J., (as he
then was) speaking for the Court, held that P. Rathinams case
was wrongly decided. The Court observed:
When a man commits suicide he has to undertake certain
positive overt acts and the genesis of those acts cannot be
traced to, or be included within the protection of the right to
life under Article 21. The significant aspect of sanctity of life
is also not to be overlooked. Article 21 is a provision
guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty and by no
stretch of imagination can extinction of life be read to be
included in protection of life. Whatever may be the philosophy
of permitting a person to extinguish his life by committing
suicide, we find it difficult to construe Article 21 to include
within it the right to die as a part of the fundamental right
guaranteed therein. 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. With respect and in all humility, we
find no similarity in the nature of the other rights, such as the
right to freedom of speech etc. to provide a comparable basis
to hold that the right to life also includes the right to die.
With respect, the comparison is inapposite, for the reason
indicated in the context of Article 21.The decisions relating to
other fundamental rights wherein the absence of compulsion to
exercise a right was held to be included within the exercise of
that right, are not available to support the view taken in P.
Rathinam qua Article 21. To give meaning and content to the
word life in Article 21, it has been construed as life with
human dignity. Any aspect of life which makes it dignified may
be read into it but not that which extinguishes it and is,
therefore, inconsistent with the continued existence of life
resulting in effacing the right itself. The right to die, if any, is
inherently inconsistent with the right to life as is death with
life.
On the question of violation of Article 14, the Court agreed with
the view taken by Hansaria J. in P. Rathinams case.

Verma J. further observed that the argument on the desirability

of retaining such a penal provision of punishing attempted
suicide, including the recommendation for its deletion by the
Law Commission are not sufficient to indicate that the provision
is unconstitutional being violative of Article 14. Even if those
facts are to weigh, the severity of the provision is mitigated by
the wide discretion in the matter of sentencing since there is no
requirement of awarding any minimum sentence and the
sentence of imprisonment is not even compulsory. There is also
no minimum fine prescribed as sentence, which alone may be
the punishment awarded on conviction under section 309, IPC.
This aspect is noticed in P. Rathinam for holding that Article 14
is not violated.
The Supreme Courts decision in Smt. Gian Kaur has thus
categorically affirmed that right to life in Article 21 does not
include the right to die. Consequently section 309 which
penalises attempt to commit suicide is not unconstitutional.
There is a school of thought which advocates the
decriminalization of the offence of attempt to commit suicide.
They plead for a compassionate and sympathetic treatment for
those who fail in their attempt to put an end to their lives. They
argue that deletion of section 309 is not an invitation or
encouragement to attempt to commit suicide. A person
indulges in the act of attempt to commit suicide for various
reasons some of which at times are beyond his control.
On the other hand, certain developments such as rise in
narcotic drug trafficking offences, terrorism in different parts of
the country, the phenomenon of human bombs etc. have led to
a rethinking on the need to keep attempt to commit suicide an
offence. For instance, a terrorist or drug trafficker who fails in
his/her attempt to consume the cyanide pill and the human
bomb who fails in the attempt to kill himself or herself along
with the targets of attack, have to be charged under section
309 and investigations be carried out to prove the offence.
These groups of offenders under section 309 stand under a
different category than those, who due to psychological and
religious reasons, attempt to commit suicide.

Accordingly, we recommend that section 309 should continue

to be an offence under the Indian Penal Code and clause 131 of
the Bill be deleted.

42nd law report:

In its 42nd Report submitted in June, 1971, the Commission
recommended, inter alia, repeal of section 309. The relevant
paras of this Report are quoted below:
Section 309suicide in the dharma shastras:
Section 309 penalises an attempt to commit suicide. It may be
mentioned that suicide was regarded as permissible in some
circumstances in ancient India. In the Chapter on The hermit in
the forest, Manus Code says,Or let him walk, fully determined and going straight on, in a
north-easterly direction, subsisting on water and air, until his

body sinks to rest. A Brahmana having got rid of his body by

one of those modes (i.e. drowning, precipitating burning or
starving) practised by the great sages, is exalted in the world of
Brahamana, free from sorrow and fear.
Two commentators on Manu, Govardhana and Kulluka, say that
a man may undertake the mahaprasthana (great departure) on
a journey which ends in death, when he is incurably diseased or
meets with a great misfortune, and that, because it is taught in
the Sastras, it is not opposed to the Vedic rules which forbid
suicide. To this Max Muller adds a note as follows:From the parallel passage of Apas tambha II, 23, 2, it is,
however, evident that a voluntary death by starvation was
considered the befitting conclusion of a hermits life. The
antiquity and general prevalence of the practice may be
inferred from the fact that the Jaina ascetics, too, consider it
particularly meritorious.
Should attempt to commit suicide be punishable? Looking at
the offence of attempting to commit suicide, it has been
observed by an English writer:
It seems a monstrous procedure to inflict further suffering on
even a single individual who has already found life so
unbearable, his chances of happiness so slender, that he has
been willing to face pain and death in order to cease living.
That those for whom life is altogether bitter should be
subjected to further bitterness and degradation seems perverse
legislation.
Acting on the view that such persons deserve the active
sympathy of society and not condemnation or punishment, the
British Parliament enacted the Suicide Act in 1961 whereby
attempt to commit suicide ceased to be an offence.
Section 309 to be repealed. We included in our Questionnaire
the question whether attempt to commit suicide should be
punishable at all. Opinion was more or less equally divided. We
are, however, definitely of the view that the penal provision is
harsh and unjustifiable and it should be repealed.

Clause 126 of the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1972,

introduced in the Council of States on 11.12.1972, provided for
the omission of section 309. It was stated in the Notes on
Clauses appended to the Bill that the said penal provision is
harsh and unjustifiable, and that a person making an attempt
to commit suicide deserves sympathy rather than punishment.
Clause 131 of the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978, as
passed by the Council of States on 23.11.1978, correspondingly
carried the above change.
As the House of the People was dissolved in 1979, the Bill,
though passed by the Council of States, lapsed. In 1995,
pursuant to the reference made by the Government of India,
the Law Commission undertook a comprehensive revision of the
Indian Penal Code, with special reference to the Indian Penal
Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978, in the light of the changed sociolegal scenario.

196th law report.....???????????

210th law report:

Suicide occurs in all ages. Life is a gift given by God and He
alone can take it. Its premature termination cannot be
approved by any society. But when a troubled individual tries to
end his life, it would be cruel and irrational to visit him with
punishment on his failure to die. It is his deep unhappiness
which causes him to try to end his life. Attempt to suicide is

more a manifestation of a diseased condition of mind deserving

of treatment and care rather than punishment. It would not be
just and fair to inflict additional legal punishment on a person
who has already suffered agony and ignominy in his failure to
commit suicide.
The criminal law must not act with misplaced overzeal and it is
only where it can prove to be apt and effective machinery to
cure the intended evil that it should come into the picture.
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code provides double
punishment for a person who has already got fed up with his
own life and desires to end it. Section 309 is also a stumbling
block in prevention of suicides and improving the access of
medical care to those who have attempted suicide. It is
unreasonable to inflict punishment upon a person who on
account of family discord, destitution, loss of a dear relation or
other cause of a like nature overcomes the instinct of selfpreservation and decides to take his own life. In such a case,
the unfortunate person deserves sympathy, counselling and
appropriate treatment, and certainly not the prison.
Section 309 needs to be effaced from the statute book because
the provision is inhuman, irrespective of whether it is
constitutional or unconstitutional. The repeal of the
anachronistic law contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code would save many lives and relieve the distressed of his
suffering.
The Commission is of the view that while assisting or
encouraging another person to (attempt to) commit suicide
must not go unpunished, the offence of attempt to commit
suicide under section 309 needs to be omitted from the Indian
Penal Code.

4. OTHER VIEWS
Shri Justice Jahagirdar has expressed his view in his article
entitled
Attempt At Suicide A Crime or A Cry in the following words:
A man commits suicide for various reasons and in diverse
circumstances. The aim, in all cases, is to get deliverance from
the several real or imaginary misfortunes to which that person
is subjected. If he is successful in his attempt, it is regarded as
deliverance; if unsuccessful it is regarded as an offence.
Survival is an offence. It is impossible to find any rational
justification for inflicting a punishment upon a person who has
made an attempt to escape punishment which he thinks society
is inflicting upon him. Is survival itself not sufficient
punishment? Over a long period, fortunately, the attitude
towards suicide and attempted suicide has changed and most
civilised countries have done away with the concept of
attempted suicide as an offence. Suicide, said Goethe, is an
incident in human life which, however much disputed and
discussed, demands sympathy of every man and in every age
must be dealt with anew. That attempted suicide is a matter
for treatment and not punishment has been recognised by
several countries. After the French Revolution in 1789,
attempted suicide was abolished as an offence in France and
subsequently in all European countries. England, as usual, was
laggard in reforms, but fortunately in 1961 by the Suicide Act,
the crime of attempted suicide was abolished. In USSR and in
most of the states in the US, it is not an offence. It was
accepted that suicide is the result of psychological disturbances
impervious to rational deterrents. In England a society called
The Samaritans provides psychological support to those
contemplating
suicide. Most of the cases are psychiatric. The presence of
Section 309 of the Penal Code is thus not only irrational and
obnoxious but also positively harmful to the members of a
society for whose benefit it is supposed to be on the statute
book. As a result of this provision existing on the statute book,

people needing mental treatment who are driven to commit

suicide are prevented from seeking the same for fear of being
punished. Which is the theory of punishment which informs
section 309 of the IPC? It cannot be deterrent because a man
commits the act for reasons beyond his control; it cannot be
reformative because a sick man is thrown among the felons.
The punitive theory is wholly irrelevant because the person
attempting suicide does no wrong to others. In sum, the
attempt to commit suicide cannot and should not be regarded
as an offence. It is not committed by a person who wants to
hurt anyone; it is not resorted to by one with criminal intention.
Suicide and attempted suicide are difficult to define. An act
which cannot be defined precisely cannot be punished. Suicide
is attempted by people for reasons beyond their control. They
need sympathy, care, love and treatment. By branding such
people as criminals, treatment is rendered difficult.
Punishment for attempted suicide is unsupportable by any
recognized theory of punishment. What the abolitionists of
Section 309 are asking for is a fair treatment for those
unfortunate, hapless people who fail in their attempts to
commit suicide. The deletion of Section 309 is not an invitation
or encouragement to attempt to commit suicide. Do not
punish the helpless; help the helpless.
The World Health Organization, on knowing the efforts of the
NGO, the SNEHA, Suicide Prevention Centre, for prevention of
suicide, stated to them that having suicidal behaviours
specified by law as a punishable offence has many negative
effects at a public health level. Moreover, punishing with
imprisonment a behaviour consequent to either a mental
disorder or a social difficulty gives a completely wrong message
to the population. There is now evidence from countries that
have repealed similarly old legislation, of the overall
improvement.
The President of the International Association for Suicide
Prevention,
France, has, vide his letter of 9 October 2007 addressed to
Honble Minister of Law and Justice, Government of India,
strongly supported withdrawal of the status of attempted
suicide as a punishable offence. He has stated that most
countries in the world who have had laws criminalizing

attempted suicide have withdrawn those laws in the second

half of the twentieth century, justifying the withdrawal by the
belief that attempting suicide is not a crime that should be
punished but rather a desperate reaction to a difficult life
situation by people who usually suffer from a mental disorder.
These changes have indicated awareness that suicidal
individuals need to be helped and imprisonment only makes
their problem worse. One of the fears expressed when all
countries in Europe and North America decriminalized
attempted suicide was that suicide rates may increase. There
are no indications whatsoever that there was an increase in
suicides following decriminalization, and in many instances it is
thought that suicide decreased since more suicidal individuals
received the help they need. Countries such as Singapore,
which still imprison some suicide attempters, do not appear to
have any benefits from those practices. For example, in
Singapore suicide rates have been increasing in recent years
despite their having suicide as a punishable offence. The
International Association for Suicide Prevention
wishes India to join the countries of the world, who have
decriminalized attempted suicide in order to clearly
communicate to suicidal individuals that they should seek help,
rather than avoid admitting to their problems for fear of
imprisonment.
The SNEHA, Chennai is of the opinion that the continuance of
the archaic law in India, like section 309, IPC, is proving to be
counterproductive to the cause of suicide prevention. In many
countries, including the whole of Europe, North America, much
of South America and Asia, including neighbouring Sri Lanka,
attempted suicide is not a criminal offence any more. Many
who resort to suicide and who manage to survive do not seek
medical help for fear of being arrested and penalized . Suicide
is a cry for help. People who attempt suicide need extensive
and sometimes long-term psycho-social support. The panacea
for them certainly cannot be imprisonment. They need
compassion, emotional support and sometimes even
psychiatric help. If the act of attempted suicide were to be
decriminalized it will make things more workable and easier for
all to extend their hand and support in reducing suicide in India.
It will encourage those who attempted suicide to seek medical
and professional help immediately without fear or inhibition.

Only a handful of countries in the world, like Pakistan,

Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore and India have persisted with
this law. The apprehension that the repeal of the law would
cause an increase in suicides is belied by the fact that Sri Lanka
repealed the law four years ago and the suicide rate is showing
a trend in reduction. In the opinion of the SNEHA, the
persistence of this law leads to following difficulties:
1. Emergency treatment for those who have attempted suicide
is not readily accessible as they are referred by local hospitals
and doctors to tertiary centres as it is termed as Medico Legal
case. The time lost in the golden hour will save many lives.
2. Those who attempt suicide are already distressed and in
psychological pain and for them to face the ignominy of police
interrogation causes increased distress, shame, guilt and
further suicide attempt.
3. At the time of family turmoil dealing with police procedure
adds to the woes of the family.
4. It also leads to a gross under-reporting of attempted suicide
and the magnitude of the problem is not unknown. Unless one
is aware of the nature of extent of the problem effective
intervention is not possible.
5. As many attempted suicides are categorized in the guise of
accidental poisoning etc. emotional and mental health support
is not available to those who have attempted as they are
unable to access the services.