S.

309 – Attempt to commit suicide

Section 309 of the Penal Code, 1860 contains the statutory provision on "attempt to commit
suicide." It states that anyone who attempts suicide and commits any act toward the
commission of such an offense faces a term of simple imprisonment, which may extend to
one year, a fine, or both. An example of an offense that attempts to commit a specific offense
is Section 309 of the IPC.
Thus, analytically speaking, an "attempt" under section 309 refers to making an unlawful act
(suicide, in this case), even though it is unsuccessful. Section 309's use of the term "such
offense" has occasionally caused ambiguity regarding what constitutes an offense—a suicide
attempt or a suicide committed. As previously mentioned, Halsbury's Law1 makes it
abundantly evident—and correctly so—that "attempt" under section 309 of the IPC refers to
committing a particular crime, namely "committing suicide. " Additionally, similar to other
inchoate offenses, "attempt" becomes a crime only if the act that was attempted is a
substantive offense. The only reason "suicide" as a term is not officially recognized as a
crime is because the successful perpetrator cannot be prosecuted. The fact that it is illegal "to
aid" or "abet" suicide (section 306 of the IPC) adds credence to the idea that it is illegal to
"commit suicide."

Case laws related to attempt to commit suicide:-

The "right to die" and the validity of section 309 of the IPC have become central issues in
India's case law concerning suicide attempts. P. Rathinam v. UOI2 and Gian Kaur v. State
of Punjab3 two cases that were decided rather quickly after one another, examined a variety
of suicide-related topics, sociopsychological factors, and other related matters. Maruti Sripati
Dubal v. State of Maharashtra4 is a significant case on this topic that has been mentioned a lot
in the two cases mentioned above, each on a different angle.
In the Rathinam case, the Supreme Court ruled that section 309 was unconstitutional and that,
under article 21 of the Constitution, the "right to die" is an essential complication of the "right
to life." The court made the following observation: "We assert that the right to life that
Article 21 mentions can be interpreted to include the right not to lead a "forced life." The
court's conclusions were summed up as follows:

1
Halsbury laws(4th edition) vol38,para42
2
P. Rathinam v. UOI
3
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
4
Maruti Sripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra
We declare that in order to make our criminal laws more empathetic, section 309 needs to be
removed from the statute book. This provision is harsh and illogical, potentially leading to the
punishment of an individual twice over who has endured suffering and shame for not taking
his own life. Therefore, it is impossible to argue that a suicide act or an attempted suicide is
against public policy, morality, or religion, and neither has a negative impact on society.
Furthermore, states should not interfere with the individuals' personal liberty when suicide or
attempted suicide does not cause harm to others. Thus, we conclude that section 309 is
invalid because it contravenes Article 21. It might be argued that by eliminating section 309,
we would be bringing this aspect of our penal code up to date with the rest of the world, thus
furthering both globalization and the much-needed humanization movement.
The court continued by saying that even a very sound mind could reasonably conclude that he
would prefer to choose not to live than to give up his right to life in order to have communion
with God. Nearly ten years prior, in the case of State (Delhi) v. Sanjay Kr. Bhatia, Rajinder
Sachar J5 expressed similar comments, stating that the law under section 309 of the IPC is an
anachronism unworthy of a decent society and that the accused, being "social misfits,"
demand for medical treatment rather than the legal one. In all instances, the courts have
acknowledged that attempting suicide is not a criminal offense, if not illegal.

The Gian Kaur court brought up the subject again, but this time it focused only on section
309's constitutionality. It distanced itself from the statute book segment that was deemed
desirable since it was inhumane and outdated. The court essentially decided that the right to
life cannot be seen in the same way as the "right to speak," which includes the "right to be
silent," because it is not the opposite of the right to die. According to several rulings, the
"right to life" is "positive in nature" and that "life," the source of all rights, ends in death.
Furthermore, exercising the "right not to speak" is one way to exercise the "right to speak," as
it only involves temporarily suspending one's may withdraw it whenever they choose. With
regard to the "right to die," this is untrue. It was also decided in Gian Kaur that section 309
punishments do not violate the Constitution's article 14.
The argument put forth is that the Supreme Court's interpretation of "life" in Rathinam is
extremely limited and surface-level, approaching a mechanical existence that can be turned
on and off like a switch. While some sects may hold the concept of mahaprasthanam, or "the
great departure," in high regard, it cannot be used as a single argument in favor of granting
the "right to die" and absolving those who undertake it of any responsibility. The question of
5
State (Delhi) v. Sanjay Kr. Bhatia, Rajinder Sachar J
whether adherents of certain cults, who feel that suicide is a necessary form of "death,"
should be granted the "right to commit suicide" may, nevertheless, remain up f r dispute.
Furthermore, this reading of the law establishes a higher faith-based conviction. Furthermore,
this reading of the law gives the religious order a higher normative value than the legal one.
Moreover, section 309 only stipulates that a person may be sentenced to a year of simple
imprisonment, with the court having complete discretion over the exact length of time. The
Lahore High Court declared in Mt. Barkat v. Emperor a long time ago that the court must
take into account the reason behind a person's decision to end their life in every instance. In
actuality, "the unfortunate person deserves indulgence and should be sentenced to a fine if he
is not too poor, or released on probation of good behaviour." As a result, the sentencing phase
and the criminal procedure shouldn't conflate the question of "culpability," which is handled
very differently
The Law Commission of India6 suggested in its 42 Report (1971) that section 309 of the
Indian criminal Code be removed because it is an unreasonable and harsh criminal provision.

S.357 - Assault or criminal force in attempt to wrongfully confine a person

Section 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful
Confinement respectively. The Indian Penal Code, of 1860 makes wrongful restraint and
wrongful confinement punishable under Sections 339 to 348.
In order to comprehend unlawful confinement and restriction, we must first comprehend what
constitutes wrongful. A criminal law definition of wrongful acts includes those that are
harmful, careless, reckless, unfair, illegal, and negligent. It covers any action that is illegal,
unapproved, or of a similar type that qualifies as a civil wrong.7
Section 357 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with assault or criminal force in an attempt
to wrongfully confine a person. The section states that whoever uses assault or criminal force
with the intention of wrongfully confining a person shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with a fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Wrongful confinement is an offense that occurs when someone obstructs another person from
moving from one place to another, where they have the right to be and want to go.
Case laws related to attempt to wrongfully confine a person

6
Law commission of india (42nd report),1971
7
V.S gupta,”Is Detaining a person crime in india” ? Cri LJ 1305
Afzal vs state of Haryana8
The case Afzal & Anr vs. State Of Haryana & Ors was heard by the Indian Supreme Court on
January 17, 1996. The case concerned Afzal and Habib, two young boys who were
purportedly unlawfully incarcerated in Ambala. In an attempt to coerce Rahim Khan, the
accused, to turn himself in, the police wrongfully detained the youngsters.
Regarding Rahim Khan's location, Munni Begum and the mother of the initial petitioner,
Afzal, had provided evasive responses. Inspector Mohd. Ishaq had taken two juveniles, Afzal
and Habib, the son of Ahmed Khan, to Ambala where they were wrongfully detained until
Rahim Khan turned himself in.
Three police officers, M.S. Ahlawat, Ishwar Singh, and Randhir Singh, were found to have
broken the law and been in contempt of court. To cover up the boys' unlawful incarceration,
the cops created fake documents and affidavits. Ishwar Singh received a sentence of six
months in prison, while Randhir Singh received a term of three months.

Management of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh &
Anr,9
In the case Management of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh
& Anr, which was heard by the Supreme Court of India on September 10, 2004, the petitioner
is the Management of Krishnakali Tea Estate. The case concerned laborers who asked for and
were denied a twenty percent bonus from the management. The workers then broke into the
management's bungalow using lethal weapons, destroyed business property, and imprisoned
the manager and others without authorization.
The Labour Court affirmed the management's choice to fire the employees due to proven
wrongdoing. Although the workers took payment and departed the management's employ,
several of them were found not guilty in the criminal case that was brought against them. The
criminal court's ruling was irrelevant to the Supreme Court's case, thus the court maintained
the firing and denied the workers' request for reinstatement with full back pay.

S.326B - Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid

8
Afzal vs state of Haryana
9
Management of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr
Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid 1 on any person or attempts to administer acid to
any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or
partial damage or deformity or bums or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous
hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.10
Explanations
1. For the purposes of section 326A and this section, “acid” includes any substance
which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing
bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
2. For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial damage or
deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.
Any act when acid is thrown or used with the intent to permanently or partially damage,
deform, or disfigure any part of the victim's body is considered an acid attack.
The deliberate flinging of acid at another person is known as "acid violence," which is an
inhumane crime. It's commonly described as an honor crime.
The three most common forms of acids are sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and nitric acid.
Although throwing such an acid seldom ends in death, it can cause serious, lifelong physical
and psychological damage. Attackers usually target the head and face to permanently disable,
disfigure, and blind a victim, driving her into an endless life of agony and apathy. Women
and children make up the majority of victims of acid abuse.
The victims of the crime are to be compensated in India. The Indian National Commission for
Women (NCW) has also taken on the responsibility of providing relief and rehabilitation to
victims of acid attacks. In a draft bill called the "Prevention of Offenses (by Acids) Act,
2008," they have proposed the establishment of the National Acid Victim Assistance Board.
 In the case where there is disfigurement of the face 7 lakh to 8 lakh.
 In cases where there is an injury of more than 50% 5 lakh to 8 lakh.
 In cases where the injury is less than 50% 3 lakhs to 8 lakhs.
 In case of injury less than 20% then 3 lakhs to 4 lakhs.

10
RS gaur “acid attack in india” 31 JILI (1989) 566
Case laws related to attempt to acid attack in india
State of Maharashtra v. Ankur Panwar,11
It is also known as the Preeti Rathi case, was heard in a special women's court here, where
the defendant was found guilty of hurling acid at Preeti Rathi at Bandra station in 2013. At
the time, Preeti Rathi had declined his proposal of marriage and chosen to pursue a career in
nursing. The same special judge, Anju Shinde, handed down the death sentence to Panwar.
The offender is sentenced to death based on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
case facts, and recent acid attack rulings from the Supreme Court.
Laxmi acid attack case12
In a landmark case, Laxmi c. Union of India 2015 in this case the lawsuit filed by Laxmi
(victim of acid) drives a campaign against preventing attacks.
a succinct history of the case The victim, who was attacked by three men when she was
fifteen, sustained severe bodily and psychological harm and was left without government
financial assistance for her care, requiring more than seven surgeries. The girl had also
declined to marry a thirty-two-year-old man. Due to the absence of a separate provision for
the offense acid attack, her attackers were charged under Section 320 for grievous hurt, or
"grievous" hurt, and Section 325 for punishment for causing grievous hurt on purpose.
Except in the circumstances listed in Article 335 (Intentionally Causing Serious Injury Due to
Provocation), anyone found guilty of intentionally causing severe injury faces a maximum
sentence of seven years in prison, a fine, and section 326 of the IPC 1860, which deals with
causing grievous hurt voluntarily with dangerous weapons or means.
The amount of punishment they received was not enough for the typical level of physical
harm they caused her. In this case, the petitioner requested that appropriate legislation be
created to keep an eye on the availability and sale of acid in the market and to establish
restrictions on the sale and purchase of acid by anybody.
The Apex Court mandated that the state or UT government responsible for acid assaults pay
victims at least Rs 3 lac. Nevertheless, the victim of an acid attack will always have some
lifelong full-body lesions, therefore the recompense is insufficient. In addition to the
decision, the court issued several instructions. First, a minimum of three lacs in compensation
must be given to the sufferer. Second, medical facilities cannot refuse to treat a victim;
hospitals are not permitted to abandon them. Thirdly, first aid should come first. Fourth, in

11
State of Maharashtra v. Ankur Panwar
12
Laxmi v union of india
order to treat victims of acid attacks, the state and federal governments should work together
to streamline the operations of private hospitals.

S.357 - Assault or criminal force in Attempt to commit theft of property

carried by a person
Assault-The act of causing bodily harm or injury to another person, or making unwanted
physical contact with someone, is known as assault.
Criminal force is described as the use of force against another person while knowing that the
other person could be harmed, however, the individual nevertheless utilizes the force to
conduct any crime or offense.
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, in attempting to commit theft on any
property which that person is then wearing or carrying shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both.
Criminal force or assault on a person to commit theft of the property the person or victim is
carrying with her/himself is a cognizable offense. section 356 of IPC is a bailable offense. 13
Case laws related to assault or criminal force in an attempt wrongfully to confine a
person
Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan 14
The responsibility and behavior of public employees with regard to public property was the
secondary concern. The Court emphasized that a public servant has an obligation to treat
public property with diligence and honesty. Bhargava's actions were considered to be a
blatant breach of this obligation, even though they were eventually corrected. Consequently,
this case set a significant precedent for the improvement of public worker accountability. The
ruling clarifies the significance of action and intent in criminal law in a larger framework.
Despite the fact that Bhargava corrected his error and had no intention of causing the
government any harm, his first actions were deemed dishonest, which resulted in his
conviction.

13
Ms.charu Srivastava “assault or criminal theft to property” <
https://www.lawtendo.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-356>
14
Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan