SUICIDE

Section 305. Abetment of suicide of child or insane person.-If any person under
eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or anv
person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such
such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for
for life, oror
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 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 which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Suicide has been declared as a crime by the IPC
not
obviously because once a person
successtully commits suicide, that person is no longer alive to be prosecuted and the
crime abates with him. However, an
attempt to commit suicide is
commit suicide is also made punishable underpunishable
s 309. An abetment to
under
ss 305 and 306,
IPC.
These sections are based
reasonable public policy to prevent other
on a
involvement, instigation and aiding in 66 persons
and threats terminating one's life." It takes care of siruations
imposed by death baiters."67
To make out a case of
abetment, there must be some active
provocation, incitement or encouragement by the accused to suggestion/instigatio
offence of abetment must confirm a person to do an act. 1
to the definition of
s 107. There must be instigation, the term 'abetment given u
would-be suicidee. Neither a mere cooperation or intentional assistance given the
to commit suicide suggestion nor a casual remark suggest1ng a sn idee
amounts to abetment to
indeed is it a commit suicide." It is not
part of the definition, that the suicide necessaly in
consequence of the abetment. But, in order to render a should have been committ
it 1s
person liable as an abettor,
65 Om Parkash v State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC
(1994) Cr 1782. See
Tukaram Gundu Naik v State of lu
LJ 224 (SC), (1994) 1 SCC
465.
66 NareshMarotraov Union of India (1995) Cr
67 Raghunath Das v LJ 96 (Bom).
68 Ganga Debi
Emperor AlR 1920 Pat 502.
v State (Delhi
Cr LJ 217 (P&H); Swamy Administration) (1985) 28 Del LT 35; Hari Singh v State of P'utji"
I'rahadas v State of
b (1983
Madhya Pradesh (1995) SCC 943 (Cri).
612
 hettor
that the abe should do something
more than
it is conceivable that
neces

But,
sometimes,

person to do a deed, which

even the
person nere
a mute
mere presence as spectaspectator.
remaining
encouragea vhich she miohe she presence as spectator may
might otherwise refrain
uestion whether mere from. In
presence amounted to
the
to b e d e c i d e d . "
intentionally aiding anothersuch cases,
will have
Refore a person can
De convictea ror abetment of suicide,
that ch other person has it must first be
committed suicide. In
Wazir Chand established
v State
deceased was a newly married
woman, who died due to burn of Haryana," the
persons,
the husband and the father-in-law of the deceased, were injuries. The accused
he Sicide. The prosecution case was that the accused charged for abetting
and set her on fire. The detence of the accused was thatsprinkled kerosene on her cloth
the burns were caused to the
deceased by accident. The Supreme Court rejected the defence version, but in view of
the fact that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
deceased committed suicide, because of some procedural lapses, set aside the conviction
of the accused under s 306, IPC. Instead, it convicted them under s 498A, IPC.
In Gurbachan Singhv Sazpal Singh," the deceased, a newly-wedded gir, died of burn
injuries. There was sufficient evidence about harassment and torture for bringing
insufficient dowry. She was also accused of carrying an illegitimate child. In view of this
harassment, the deceased committed suicide by setting herself afire. It was held that the
an ordinary Indian
provocations given to the deceased were grave and serious enough for
Woman to kill herself. The evidence also revealed that none of her in-laws made any
The deceased's parents were neither informed
attempt to save her from burn injuries. taken for
aDout her burns nor were prompt steps giving her medical assistance. The
accused were convicted for abetting the suicide.
the wife to commit suicide
unhappiness in matrimonial lite pushing
owever, mere of the IPC. In Thangappandian
v State," the only
and 306
Will not attract s 498A s
was that
there were some petty quarrels
berween him and
the accused could not be
dence against Court held that such petty quarrels
nis deceased wife. The Madras High under s 498A, IPC. Under
'cruelty' contemplated
within the term
wilful conduct, which is of such
Sought to be brought IPC, cruelty is stated to be therefore.
CAplanation to s 498A of to commit suicide. A
reasonable nexus,
drive a person in order to
the suicide ot the
woman,
lature as is likely to between the cruelty and convict the accused
court refused to
needs be established
to Accordingly,
the

make good the offence

of cruelty.
498A, IPC. of suicide. In Tei
under s 306 read with abetment
commit satibeen crowd,
has
held
to bewho ad joined
had the funeral
widow to
Encouraging a
members of the of the
accused w e r e the cremation
ground. The widow
the
Singh State,"
the house of the
deceased to with
an
i n t e n t i o n to commit sati,
The
procession from front of the procession about 100--150
deceased walking in
was
ai'. As the procession proceeded,
kijai.
mata for them to the
'sati it impossible
tarted shouting
to make with the widow
accused
the police in order thei
the funeral pyre was
set n fire
people
surrounded
ati Ultimately,
Ultimately, ho joined that procession were aiding
sati.
widow from
committing
that all those persons
held
o n it.
It was

sitting in
committing
sa.

the widow

(1995)
Cr 1J 3049 (Ori).
Sur
v
Debnath
1998 SC 958,
69
Krushanahari
Kumar v State
of tlaryana AlR
1989 SC 209; also, Pawan
70 AIR SC
see

71 AIR 1990 (Mad). 967 (Raj).

LJ 993 Cr LJ
(1998) Cr (1958)
72 169,
1958 Raj
73 AIR 613
 Criminal Law
n Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaue u Union of India,"
rightly so, that the Supreme Court held, and
physician-assisted suicide is an offence under s 306 of
IPC. The
4SStance of a doctor may be active or passive. In the former, he (or the a third
actively assists another in ending his lifc. while in thc latter; he parn.
anything to save his life. n cither case, active or passive cuthanasia, simply
he
does not d
an abettor of suicide. If a person becomes unsuccessful in becomes liable as
becomes liable under s 309, terminating his
IPC. If he is not in a position, say because of brain life, he
Vegetative state, to end his life, and someone else death or
helps him to do so, he becomes abettor
In Commor Cause
Common (A Registered Society) v Union of India, 75 the
that Aruna
RamcBhandra Shanbaue case was wrongly decided, petitioner, contending
ding
to declare that 'right to live with dignity' urged the Supreme Cout
takes in its fold the guaranteed under art 21 of the Constitution
'right to die with dignity' and that a person with deteriorated health
or terminally-ill is entitled to execute "My Will
which can be Living and Attorney Authorisation'
presented to hospital for appropriate action in the event of the
being admitted to the
hospital with serious illness or chronic diseases or likely toexecutant
a state ofterminal illness or permanent go into
unwanted medical treatment vegetative state so as to get rid of cruel and
ventilator and other
(like feeding through hydration tubes, being kept on
life-supporting machines) from doctors in order to artificially
prolong his natural life-span and to relieve those who help him in
criminal liability. The prayer was counter ending his life from
argued by the tact that it
Hippocratic Oath, the primary duty of doctors to save Iife of his patients. is,The Supreme
per the
as

Court, after hearing arguments of both the Supreme

pronouncements in the Gian Kaur and the Aruna Ramchandra looking
parties, carefully looking into its
Shanbaug cases and
realising that the latter case holds the field in regard to assisted-suicide in India, referred
the question to a Constitution Bench for its
consideration and for clear enunciation of
propositions of law.
 Bf her
TEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE marriage and

209.
Section 309.
Attempt to
Secteany act towards commit
and does
the suicide.-Whoever
commission attempts commit
mprisonment for term which may of such offence,
simple imprisonmen a
shall be suicide
to

both. extend to one

year or
punished with
with fine,
rated or with
ncomm it earlier, suicide is as such
Suicide is made
no crime underthe IPC.
elements oft this offence. punishable under this
section. Mens rea However, attempt to
is one of the
essential
Constitutional Validity of Section 309
The constitutional validity of s 309 was
provision and violative initially struck down as cruel and irrational
of art 21 of the a
of India." However, in Gian Kaur v Constitution, in the case of P Rathinam v Union
reversed and a Constitutional Bench ofState of Punjab," the P Rathinam dictum was
the Supreme Court
validity of 309, by indicating that it does not
s upheld the constitutional
violate
Constitution. It held that the' right to life under art 21 arts 14, 19 and 21 of the
include the 'right to die'. of the Constitution does not

Intention
As stated earlier, intention to commit
suicide is essential in order to constitute an offence
under this section. Where an accused
came out of the well of his own
jumped into a well to avoid the police and later
accord, it was held that in the absence of evidence that
he jumped into well to commit suicide, he could not be convicted of the offence
the
81
under this section.

Hunger Strike
Announcement of hunger strikes is a common scenario in India. Very often, these
nunger strikes are resorted to as a means to pressurise
some
authority to concede
demands of the hunger strikers. So, generally speaking, the intention of a person on a

78 Ramesh Kumar v of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618;Hans

State Sanju Sanjay Singh Sengar Sare of v

Madhya Pradesh (2002) 5 SCC 371, AIR 2002 SC 1998; (2006) Rajv State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC
9 SCC 794.
2790, (2004) 12 SCC 257; Sahebrao v State ofMaharashtra to Die and
79 AIR 1994 SC 1844, (1994) 3 SCC 394. For comments,
see
KI Vibhute, The Right Bar
Some Critical Retlections', Indian Review,
Chance to Live-A Fundamental Right in India:
1997, vol 24, pp 65-96.
of like, which cannot be distinguished
80 AIR 1996 SC 946, (1996) 2 SCC 648. Voluntary termination Master v nion of
from suiCide, attracts the and 306 of the IPC. See CA Thomas
provisions of 309
ss
India (2000) Cr LJ 3729 (Ker).
81 Emperor v Dwarka Poonja (1912) 13 Cr LJ 246 (Bom).

615
 Criminal Law

hunger striker is not to kill himself, but, to the contrary, very often it is done for
1mprovement, advancement or amelioration of some situation. In view of this, the
essential requirement of the offence, namely, the intention to kill oneself, is absent and
hence, it cannot amount to an offence under this section. Thus, only in cases where the
accused intends to persevere to the end, refuses all nourishment and reaches such a stage
that there is imminent danger of death ensuing, can he be held guilty of the offence of
attempt to commit suicide.