JURISPRUDENTIAL ANALYSIS OF SECTION 309 OF

I.P.C
(0) Comments

JURISPRUDENTIAL ANALYSIS OF SECTION 309 OF I.P.C[1]
Suicide is not abominable because God prohibits it; God prohibits it because it is
abominable.
I mmanuel Kant
Abstract
Even though words like I, me and myself are an intrinsic part of our vocabulary, there are
factors that force us to question and reconsider just how much of ourselves and our breathing
body are we truly capable of dictating and controlling. Kantian philosophy on attempting to
suicide is that if you are using yours body as a mean it mean you are not respecting yourself
as an end in itself. The 18th law Commission in its 210th report suggested that section 309 of
I.P.C i.e. Punishment for Attempt to suicide be repealed. This contention is dealt in light of
Kantian and Nozicks philosophy.

Suicide: At Glance
Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, which means "to kill oneself") is the act of
intentionally causing one's own death. Suicide is enigmatic and disconcerting phenomenon.
Right from ancient to modern times, the events of suicide have been a distressing
phenomenon among all the human societies, in one way or the another. The mystery of
suicide is so dominanta factor, or an event, that does not leave anyone, either a group or a
class, to be out of this vicious circle. The problem of suicide is the most ticklish and tedious
one to deal with. When certain force human or natural it becomes so dominating that the one
feels dying better than living. In the process of suicide, there is a lot of self-realization but no
self-pity and self-condemnation. Typically, a number of social and individual factors compel
a person to commit suicide, such as bankruptcy, family dishonor, divorce, dowry, failed
relationships, cancellation or inability to get married to a person whom you love, loss of job,
failure in exams, cultural factors, socio-economic factors and even stress etc.
While approximately one million people die by suicide worldwide, more than one lakh
persons (1, 18,112) in the country lost their lives by committing suicide during the year 2006.
This indicates an increase of 3.7 per cent over the previous years figure (1, 13,914). The
number of suicides in the country during the decade (1996-2006) has recorded an increase of
33.9 per cent (from 88,241 in 1996 to 1, 18,112 in 2006).
The overall male:female ratio of suicide victims for the year 2006 was 64:38; however, the
proportion of boys:girls suicide victims (up to 14 years of age) was 48:52, i.e., almost equal
number of young girls have committed suicide as their male counterparts. Youths (15-29
years) and lower middle-aged people (30-44 years) were the prime groups taking recourse to
the path of suicides. Around 35.7 per cent were youths in the age group of 15-29 years and
34.5 per cent were middle-aged persons in the age group of 30-44 years of the total suicide
victims. Senior citizens have accounted for 7.7 per cent of the total victims. Social and
economic causes have led most of the males to commit suicides, whereas emotional and
personal causes have mainly driven females to end their lives.
Now focus on the Kantian philosophical aspect on suicide that whether suicide is morally
correct act or not? If not, then why??
Suicide and Kant
According to Kant, the action of suicide violates owns moral duty. The contention that I
owe myself so I am free to kill myself when there is much pain than pleasure in my life and
to prevent future pain I make myself a mean is contradicted by Kant. Kant says, The greatest
moral rule is that you should only behave as you like everyone to behave or that you should
only account policy that every rationale person can simultaneously adopt, and the suicide is
somewhat contradictory so every rationale person cannot adopt it so if anyone kills himself is
seriously irrational and immoral act.
One of the basic reasons in favors of suicide attempt is that it is mean to get rid of their grief.
Kant raises objection here, you cannot treat your body as a mean to fulfill yours interest or
motive i.e. it mean that you are not respecting yours humanity as an end in itself. Kant
argues that, "He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be
consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself."
Kant keeps the murder and suicide on the same footing. If one is committing murder it means
that he is using that person as a mean to fulfill its interest or desire i.e. he is not respecting the
humanity of that person as an end in itself. Likewise, for Kant the suicide is just same as
murder here the difference is only that in suicide one is disrespecting his own humanity as an
end in itself. The categorical imperative test of Kant treat person as an end is related in this
respect.
For Kant, there is only one reason to do the right thing, is that it is right. This means that
people should do right things, not as a means to an end, but just because it is right in and of
itself. Would killing himself/herself be doing the right thing in and of itself? Under the
Kantian philosophy, I don't think so. Although the motivation for going through with suicide
would be to get rid of the suffering, the act itself would be done as a means to an end, in a
consequentialist fashion under the hypothetical imperative. This contradicts Kantian ethics.
Hypothetical imperatives are reliant upon the circumstance of the situation. They are
contingent. Hypothetical imperatives are framed to come with certain result (consequence),
and have no concern with morality. Kant favors categorical imperative not hypothetical
imperative.
Only decisions formed under the categorical imperative are moral. Categorical Imperatives
are not dependent on the context of a situation. They are universal (can be applied in all
situations). In making a decision, if one cannot universalize the behavior (can everyone do it
and still be right?) without contradiction, then the behavior/act should not be done. I think
that a Kantian would say that killing yourself (under any circumstances, for any reason),
cannot be universalized, so suicide should not be allowed.
Kant says, A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels sick of life, but is still
so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether taking his own life would
not be contrary to his duty to himself. Now he asks whether the maxim of his action could
become a universal law of nature. But his maxim is this: from self-love I make as my
principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises
satisfaction. There only remains the question as to whether this principle of self-love can
become a universal law of nature. One sees at once that a contradiction in a system of nature
whose law would destroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate
the furtherance of life, and hence there could be no existence as a system of nature.
Therefore, such a maxim cannot possibly hold as a universal law of nature and is,
consequently, wholly opposed to the supreme principle of all duty.
If according to Kant, suicide is morally and rationally wrong, now question arises whether the
person who has attempted suicide shall be punished for committing this moral and rationale
wrong?

Analyzing Attempt to Suicide as punishment
Attempt to suicide may result into two circumstances firstly, when suicide attempt get
successful that is person ends his life and secondly, when suicide attempt is rescued and
surviving.In the first circumstances it is impossible to punish the person who has committed
suicide because suicide leaves no person whom to be prosecuted, so its impossible to make
suicide as crime.
In the second circumstances the person who has attempted suicide and is rescued. Now the
question arises whether he shall be punished? I would analyze this question in the
philosophical light of different jurists concerning the law commission report.

Philosophical analysis of Law Commission Report : 210th Report
Throughout history, suicide has been both condemned and commended by various societies.
Since the middle Ages, society has used first the canonic and later the criminal law to combat
suicide. Following the French Revolution of 1789 criminal penalties for attempting to
commit suicide were abolished in European countries, England being the last to follow suit in
1961. Most of the countries have decriminalize the suicide and only a handful of countries in
the world, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore and India have persisted with this
undesirable law.
The 18th Law Commission has in its 210th report has recommended Humanization and
Decriminalization of Attempt to Suicide. The report was forwarded by the Chairman of the
Commission, Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, and former Supreme Court Judge to the Union
Law Minister, Dr. Hans Raj Bhardwaj.
According to report- Section 309 provides double punishment for a person who has already
got fed up with his life and desires to end it. Section 309 is also a stumbling block to
prevention of suicides and improving the access of medical care to those who have attempted
suicide. The Commission also added, It is unreasonable to inflict punishment upon a person
who, on account of family discord, destitution, loss of a dear relation or cause of a like
nature, overcomes the instinct of self-preservation and decides to take his own life. In such a
case, the unfortunate person deserves sympathy, counseling 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.
Section 309 of the I.P.C reads as follows:
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.
The law recommendation was based upon world health organization reports, international
association for suicide prevention, decriminalization of attempted suicide by all countries in
Europe and North America, the opinion of the Indian Psychiatric Society, and the
representations received by the Commission from various persons, that it would relieve the
distressed of suffering of the person who has attempted suicide.
The person who has attempted the suicide inspite of putting him with in bars and adding more
darkness in his misery world its better to provide the medical treatment and counseling the
person so that he can comes out from the trauma of depression from where he choosed death
over life.
The object of keeping such act may be the utilitarian the deterrence punishment by punishing
the person attempting suicide bringing fear in minds of others will prevent the other from
committing similar crime but on the other hand, it is also becoming the reason of hard
committing suicide where the rescue chances lowers, because person might think if his/her
suicide attempt is unsuccessfulness then he/she would be prosecuted so to go with hard
suicide attempt. While, utilitarian also might view the act of suicide is somewhat negative act
and its leaving negative psychological impact in the society so as it is harming society in
majority so the person committing suicide(minority) shall be prosecuted so that suicidal
impact on society is reduced and there may be welfare of the majority.
Basically, no law can be made to prevent suicide attempt but policies can be made such
where no person thinks to commit suicide. If the philosophy of the Kantian is inbuilt in all
human being than no one would use its body as mean to eradicate its grief and suffering, and
categorical imperative that treat person as an end, and universalization policies of Kant is
such that would cease the person from giving his life due to pain and suffering. For Kant
every individual is rationale being. Kant has described suicide as morally wrong and
irrational but nowhere mentions that the person attempting suicide shall be punished.
Its better to make reformative and preventive measure than punishing person in jail and
keeping him/her with hardened criminals where he may undergo more depression or may turn
into criminal so the consequences may be more worsen. Whereas punishing the person who
attempts to commit suicide serves no purpose.
Nozicks concept of Minimal state:
Libertarian argues that a minimal state is quintessential for liberty and freedom in a society.
By minimal state it means the state which concerns only with enforcing contract, protecting
private property and keeping peace. Thus for libertarian, state cannot engage in either
paternalism or moral legislation.
Now applying, the Nozicks minimal state concept on the law commission recommendation.
As the law commission has also recommended that the section 309 of the Indian penal code
shall be repealed and Nozicks minimal state also speaks that no paternalism and no morals
legislation.
No paternalism means dont make law to protect people from harming themselves. No moral
legislation means the libertarian oppose using the coercive force of law to promote notions of
virtue or to express the moral convictions of the majority.
The statistical data of suicide rate in India shows inspite of having law against suicide attempt
the number of suicide attempt has increased, it mean that the law against suicide attempt
serves no purpose. It is impossible to make any law which could prevent any person from
committing suicide. So making law for the person who has attempted suicide and rescued and
punishing him in jail is not worthful.
So one who want to commit suicide because he feels life is full of darkness has attempted
suicide so the state is nothing to do with it as the person is not violating the right of another
so nothing wrong in it . Its the liberty of the person to live its life on its own terms, and every
individual knows where he finds pleasure and pain so state should not come with the law
where the person attempting suicide shall be punished. But state intervention should be such
to make reformative policy which would eliminate the reasons because of what the persons
are committing suicides.
As engaging law to suicide attempt is having no beneficial consequences even its adding
more misery to the life of the person so its better that there would be the minimal state
concept.

Conclusion:
Suicide can only be controlled by observing risk assessment at the preliminary stage where
persons shows certain symptoms that it can easily be assessed , and that person should be
provided medical counseling and public health intervention. Public education and campaign
can be used as mean to check suicide. Giving punishment to the suicide attempting person is
inhumane. Although suicide is immoral and irrational act as per Kant and there has been the
constitutional debate on validity of sec 309 of I.P.C which according to supreme court
judgment in case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1996 SC 946) by a Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court, holding that Article 21 cannot be construed to include within it
the right to die as a part of the fundamental right guaranteed therein, and therefore, it cannot
be said that section 309 violates Article 21. But irrespective of its constitutionality and
unconstitutionality it is necessary to see the constitutionalism of the constitution the humanity
ground and as such section 309 is inhumane so it should be repealed. The Delhi High Court
in State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia, a case under section 309, IPC observed that:
Many penal offences are the offshoots of an unjust society and socially decadent outlook of
love between young people being frustrated by false consideration of code, community or
social pretensions. No wonder so long as society refuses to face this reality its coercive
machinery will invoke the provision like Section 309 I.P.C. which has no justification right to
continue remain on the statute book.