LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SH. MARUTI SHRIPATI DUBAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SH. MARUTI SHRIPATI DUBAL .. t~ AUGUSf'29, 1996 r. [G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : S. 309-Attempt to commit suicitk:'--/'olice constable met with a road C accident-Suffered heart injuryo--Became mentally ill-Diagnosed to be suf- fering from scizoph-renea--Attempted self immolation-Before the case of attempted suicide could be decided by the Court, he challenged the vires of S. 309-High Court held that S.309 was .ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution-Subsequently a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court ovenuled that decisioit-Held, considering the serious ailments which he was suffering D from, it would not be desirable to proceed further with the Uial of the criminal case initiated against him for the offence of attempt to commit suicide after a long lapse of time of abollt 11 years-In order to do complete justice, direction issued for quashing the crini'ihal case against him-Constitution of E F G India, Art 14, 19, 21 and 142. i Lakendra Singh v. State of M.P., [1996) 2 SCC 648, followed and sentencing-as-pect explained. Mantti Shripati Dubai v. State of Maharashtra, (1987) Crl. CJ. 743, held already overruled and set aside. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1987. From the Judgment and Order dated 24/25.9.86 of the Bombay High Court in W.f'. No. 641 of 1986. Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellant. The following Order of the Court was delivered : • This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.96 passed in H writ petition No. 641of1986 by the Higit Court of Bombay upholding the 358 STATEv.MARUTISHRIPATIDUBAL 359 challenge made by the respondent Shri Maruti Shripati Dubal about the A vires of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent Shri Dubal was a Police Constable attached to the Bombay City Police Force and on the date of the incident, he had already put in 19 years service as a Constable. In 1981, he met with an accident and suffered head injuries and although he recovered from such injury he became mentally ill and con- B tinned to be so until that day. He attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on his body and lighting match stick as alleged by the prosecution. Before the said case of attempted suicide could be decided by the Court, the respondent challenged the vires of Section 309 of the IPC before the High Court of Bombay by filing the writ petition and by the impugned judgment, the High Court found that Section 309 was ultra vires, Articles C 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In Criminal Appeal No. 461/96 (Lakendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh) the Constitution Bench of this Court by judgment dated 21st March, 1996 since reported in [1996] 2 sec page 648 has upheld the vires D of Section 309 Indian Penal Code by indicating that the said section does not violate Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The im- pugned decision of the Bombay High Court was also referred for con- sideration in Lakendra Singh's case but the decision of the Bombay High Court in Marnti Sripati's case has been expressly over-ruled. The appeal, therefore, is to be allowed. The impugned judgment of the Bombay High E Court is set aside. It, however, appears to us that the alleged attempt to commit suicide had been made by the respondent on 27th April, 1985 and the said case had not been tried as yet because of the challenge at the threshhold made p by the respondent questioning the constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC. As Section 309 IPC is constitutionally valid as held by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the criminal case initiated on the charge of attempt to commit suicide therefore requi[.es to be decided on merits. The alleged incident for attempt to comm.it suicide had taken place G more than 11 years ago. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has noted that after meeting with road accident causing head injury, the respondent became mentally dis-balanced and he had undergone psychiatric treatment since January, 1982. His ailments were diagnosed in in July 1992 as "Giddiness fright, reduced sleep, nervousness, confusioii H 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A etc." In August, 1982, the doctor diagnosed that the respondent was suf- fering from schizophrenea. He was also suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations. Electric Shocks treatment was administered to him and heavy tranquilizers were give
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.