P. RATHINAM/NABHUSAN PATNAIK versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 26-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, B.L. HANSARIA
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.,. 
I 
P. RATHINAM/NABHUSAN PATNAIK 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
APRIL 26, 1994 
IR.M. SAHA! AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860'-Section 30<)-{)ffence of attempted 
suicide-Constitutional validity of-Held, Section 309 violates ArtiC/e 21 of 
A 
B 
the Constitution of India-ft is unconstitutional and hence void-Act of com-
mitting suicide-Cannot be said to be against regional, morality or public C 
. policy-Act of atlempted suicide has no baneful effect on society-Treating 
different attempts to commit suicide by same measure-Not violative of Art 
14.-Section 3~Suicide and Euthanasia-Relationship between--Distinc-
tion.-Section 306 and 301)-,Aiding suicide-Self killing is different from abet-
ting others to kill themselves. 
D 
Constitution of India-Altic/es 14 & 21-Right to life-Scope-Article 
21 has positive conten~ight encompassed by Article can be waived-Treat-
ing different attempts to commit suicide by same measure-Not violative of 
Article 14. 
Crime and Tolt-iJistinction. 
The two petitions were filed challe_nging the validity of Section 309 
of the Indian Penal Code by contending that the same was \iolative of 
Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution and the prayer made was to declare 
E 
the section as void and to quash the proceedings initiated against the F 
petitioner uls 309. 
Dismissing the petitions, this court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be 
G 
effaced from the statute book to humanise our penal laws. It is a cruel and 
irrational provision, and it may result iu punishing a person again (doubly) 
who has suffered agony and would be undergoing ignominy because of bis 
failure to commit suicide. Then an act of suicide cannot be said to be against 
religion, morality or public policy, and an act or attempted suicide has no 
baneful effect on society. Further, suicide or atte~pt to. commit it causes no H 
673 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994]3S.C.R. 
A 
harm to others, because of which state's interference with the personal 
liberty of the concerned persons is not called for. [715-G-H, 716-A] 
1.2. Section 309 violates Article 21, and so, it is void. May it be said 
that the view taken would advance not only the cause of humanisation, 
which is a need of the day, but of globalisation also, as by effacing section 
B 309, this part of our criminal law will be attuned to the global wave length. 
['116-B] 
1.3. Suicide is intentional taking of one's. life. Different methods are 
adopted in committing suicide. Even so, suicide is capable of broad defini· 
tion. On a prosecution being launched it is always open to an accused to 
C take plea that his act did not constitute suicide whereupon the court would 
dedde this aspect also. [684-E-F] 
1.4. Treating of different attempts to commit suicide by the same 
measures cannot be regarded as violative of Article 14, inasmuch as the 
D 
nature, gravity and extent of attempt may be taken care of by tailoring the 
sentence appropriately. Section 309 bas only provided the maximum sen-
tence which is upto one year. It provides for imposition of fine only as a 
punishment. [684-G-H] 
C. Jagdeeswar v. State of Andhara Pradesh, (1988) Cri. LJ. 549, 
E affirmed. 
F 
It would be wrong to think that a person attempting to commit 
suicide does not get punished. He does. The agony undergone by Htim and 
the ignominy to be undergone is definitely a punishment, thoui:h not a 
corporal punishmeilt; but then, section 309 has provided for a sentence of 
fine also. Agony and ignominy undergone would be far more paiufnl and 
deterrent than fine which too may not come to be realized if th•e person 
concerned were to be released on probation. (700-G] 
There can. be no justification to prosecute sacrificers of th.cir lives. 
G Such a prosecntion is per excellence persecution. What is required is to 
reach the soul to stir it to make it cease to be cruel. Let us humanize our 
laws. It is never late to do so. (703-A-EJ 
Suicide is a psychiatric problem and not a manifestation of criminal 
instinct. Suicide is really a 'Call for Held' and there is no 'Call for 
H punishment' in it. What is needed to take care of suicide pron" persons 
.. 
RATHINAM/PATNAIK v. U.0.1. 
675 
are soft words and wise counseling and not stony dealing by a jailer A 
'following harsh treatment meted out by a heartless prosecutor. Suicide 
knows no barrier of race, religion, caste, age or sex. There is 'secularisa-
tion of suicide'. Every individual enjoys freedoms of r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.