P. Chandrakumar v. State, 2021 - Hunger Strike Does Not Amount To Attempt To Suicide U/s 309 IPC

DATE: 15^th February, 2021

JUDGES: N. Anand Venkatesh

PARTIES: P. Chandrakumar (PETITIONER)

State (RESPONDENT)

SUBJECT

The judgement majorly deals with interpretation of section 309 of IPC which criminalises attempt to suicide. The question before the Madras High Court was whether hunger strike would amount to attempt to suicide under section 309 IPC or not.

AN OVERVIEW

1. The petitioner P. Chandrakumar was detained in a special camp, Poonamallee, and was denied of freedom of movement.
2. Consequently, a protest was made by the petitioner by way of hunger strike, after which an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence of attempt to commit suicide under section 309 of IPC in 2013.
3. On completion of the report, cognizance was taken by taken by the Court in 2016.
4. Aggrieved from the proceedings, a petition was filed in present Court contending that the said offence is punishable for a term of one year, while in the present circumstances the court took cognizance after 3 years.
5. It was also contended by the petitioner that the act of hunger strike or fasting does not amount to the offence of attempt to suicide u/s 309 IPC.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

INDIAN PENAL CODE

• Section 309: Attempt to commit suicide-Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall he punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year 1[or with fine, or with both].

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

• Section 468: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation-

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be-

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

ISSUES

The key issues before the Madras High Court in this case are as follows:-

• Whether the act of hunger strike amounts to the offence of attempt to commit suicide u/s 309 IPC?
• Whether the cognizance taken by the court after 3 years is valid or not?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

• Hunger strikes in India have been practiced as a non-violent method to protest and create pressure for the fulfilment of demand. It has been considered as a right to freedom of expression. But section 309 of IPC criminalises attempt to commit suicide and it has been held that that right to life does not include right to die. These two interpretations may seem prima facie in violation of each other, and the court in the present case is dealing with the same question.
• It has been contended by the petitioner that hunger strike and fasting does not amount to attempt to suicide. Answering this contention, the court stated that merely the fact that the petitioner was sitting on hunger strike to protest against his detention does not attract the offence of 309 of IPC. Even if the materials available on record are taken as it is, it does not constitute an offence under Section 309 IPC.
• Concerning the second contention of invalid cognizance, the court referred to sections 309 if IPC and 468 of CrPC. According to section 309 of IPC, attempt to suicide is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term that may extend to one year. Further, section 468 of CrPC states that when an offence is punishable with a term not more than one year, the limitation period will be 1 year for taking cognizance.
• The same was not the case in the present circumstances, as the cognizance was taken only after 3 years. Thus, the court observed that no useful purpose is served if the proceedings are kept proceedings. The petition was thus allowed and the proceedings were quashed.

CONCLUSION

• Before analysing the approach of the court, let’s first see what section 309 of IPC is. So far we have seen that this section criminalises the attempt to commit suicide. However, it is established fact that for an offence mens rea is a necessary component, and the language of the section clearly in its expression “does any act towards the commission of such offence” suggests that the accused must have the intention of killing himself.
• In the case of hunger strikes, the determination of mens rea is indeed a herculean task. Unless it has been clearly stated that one is not going to eat anything till death it cannot be regarded as an attempt to suicide.
• Also, when a person declares that he is going to fast unto death, he puts a condition before the state, and if that condition is met, the fast is given up, implying that the intention behind the fasting was not kill oneself but to create pressure on the state to fulfil the demands made by the party sitting on hunger strike.
• Thus, the clear absence of mens rea in the present case makes it out of the purview section 309 of IPC. Therefore, the decision of the court is appreciated.