Section 309 IPC: Attempt to Commit Suicide and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provided punishment for a person who attempted to commit suicide and did an act towards commission of that attempt. However, before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force, the practical legal position was materially affected by Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
What did Section 309 IPC provide?
Section 309 IPC dealt with an unsuccessful attempt by a person to end his or her own life. The statutory provision required both an attempt to commit suicide and an act towards commission of that attempt.
Text of Section 309 IPC - 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 words permitting punishment "with fine, or with both" reflected the amendment made by Act 8 of 1882. The earlier wording had stated that the person "shall also be liable to fine."
Essential ingredients of Section 309 IPC
On its statutory wording, Section 309 required:
- An attempt to commit suicide: there had to be an intention to commit suicide coupled with conduct amounting to an attempt.
- An act towards commission: the person must have done an act towards carrying out that attempt. Mere thoughts, intention or preparation without an act amounting to an attempt would not satisfy the wording of Section 309.
Punishment prescribed by Section 309 IPC
| Offence | Statutory punishment |
|---|---|
| Attempt to commit suicide and doing an act towards commission of the offence | Simple imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both. |
Effect of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
Section 115(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 provided that, notwithstanding Section 309 IPC, a person who attempted to commit suicide was to be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and was not to be tried and punished under Section 309 IPC.
This created a rebuttable statutory presumption. In other words, severe stress was presumed unless the contrary was proved. The provision therefore substantially restricted the circumstances in which the penal consequences contained in Section 309 IPC could operate.
Government duty to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation
Section 115(2) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 placed a duty on the appropriate Government to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person who, having severe stress, attempted to commit suicide, with the object of reducing the risk of recurrence.
The statutory approach therefore shifted the legal response substantially towards care, treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Was Section 309 IPC repealed before the BNS?
No. Immediately before commencement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 309 remained a provision of the Indian Penal Code. However, its operation had to be read subject to the later non-obstante provision in Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
It is therefore more accurate to say that Section 115 substantially restricted the practical operation of Section 309 than to state that Section 309 had already been formally repealed by the Mental Healthcare Act.
Constitutional position of Section 309 IPC
The constitutional validity of Section 309 had a significant judicial history. In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had held Section 309 unconstitutional. That position did not remain the governing law.
A Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab overruled that approach and upheld the constitutional validity of Section 309. The Court held, in substance, that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution did not include a right to die by suicide.
Accordingly, the legal position before the BNS combined two distinct propositions: Section 309 had survived constitutional scrutiny, while Parliament subsequently enacted Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 to create the presumption of severe stress and protect the person from trial and punishment under Section 309 unless that presumption was displaced.
Section 309 IPC and abetment of suicide
An attempt by a person to commit suicide under Section 309 was legally distinct from another person's abetment of suicide. Section 306 IPC dealt with punishment for a person who abetted the commission of suicide. The two provisions therefore addressed different conduct and different accused persons.
Key legal position before 1 July 2024
- Section 309 IPC remained in the Indian Penal Code.
- Its text prescribed simple imprisonment up to one year, or fine, or both.
- Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 operated notwithstanding Section 309.
- A person attempting suicide was presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress.
- Subject to that statutory framework, the person was not to be tried and punished under Section 309.
- The appropriate Government had a statutory duty concerning care, treatment and rehabilitation for a person with severe stress who attempted suicide.
- The Constitution Bench decision in Gian Kaur had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 309, notwithstanding the later statutory policy reflected in the Mental Healthcare Act.
Why Section 115 is important when reading old Section 309 cases
The date of the alleged conduct matters. For events after the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 came into force but before the BNS commenced, it would be incomplete to refer only to the punishment appearing in Section 309 IPC. The non-obstante protection, presumption of severe stress and care-oriented obligation under Section 115 also formed part of the applicable statutory framework.
Legal note: This page is an informational explanation of the IPC-era provision. The applicable law in an individual matter depends on the date and facts of the case and any relevant saving or transitional provisions.