Abetment of suicide and attempt to murder – Sec 305 – 311 IPC

Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code1860

Abetment of suicide of child or insane person.—If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delir­ious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In AMRIK SINGH V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB PETITIONER. It was held that the learned counsel has further argued that in similar circumstances, one Gurcharan Singh Mann, employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board has also been reinstated after having served the sentence of five years under Section 305, Indian Penal Code. This fact has also been admitted by the State Government in its written statement. In addition to this, Mr. Agnihotri has also argued that the offence punishable under Section 304(1), Indian Penal Code does not relate to moral turpitude nor has the conduct of the petitioner been adversely commented upon, either by the Court or by the authorities.

Section 306 of Indian penal code states that If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In JAIPAL V. STATE OF HARYANA case under section 306 indian penal code against the appellant was registered on 2. 9. 1982 bhagat singh a. S. 1. P. W. 5 who was entrusted with the investigation of the case stated that he had directed the complainant to be present in the village on 24. 10. 1982. Nobody else knew about the occurrence in the village. He further stated in the cross – examination that he was informed by the residents of the village of the appellant that kamla did not die of drawing, but died of stomach ache. Had singh p. W. 7 started investigation on 2. 9. 1982.

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 1860

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Attempts by life-convicts– When any person offending` under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

X, intending to murder Y by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in X’s keeping; X has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. X places the food on Y’s table or delivers it to Y’s servants to place it on Y’s table. X has committed the offence defined in this section.

In BHAGIRATH V. KANA RAM it was ststed that IT transpires from the records of this case that against the order of the Magistrate not taking cognizance under section 307 indian penal code, the State of Rajasthan had moved the High Court in CrI.M.P No. 184/96 and that application was dismissed by order dated 21.11.1996, on coming to the conclusion that the Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out any prima facie evidence to show that a case under section 307 indian penal code was made out. WE fail to understand, after the aforesaid order without even noticing the accused, how the High Court could pass the impugned order directing the Magistrate to take cognizance for the offence punishable under section 307 indian penal code. In the facts and circumstances of the present case without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are quashing the impugned order of the High Court since tine same has been passed without even hearing the accused, and remit the matter to the High Court for redisposal after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The learned Chief Justice is requested to place this matter before a learned Judge other than the Judge who had passed the impugned orderdated6.11.1997.

Section 308 of Indian Penal Code

It states that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

For Example:

X, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at B, under such circumstances that if he there by caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. X has committed the offence defined in this section.

In JANGIR SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB it was held that having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length in the light of the records with them I find that it is difficult to sustain the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge charging the petitioners under section 308 Indian Penal Code. As has already been pointed out above, the injury to which a reference has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent, is simple injury though on the head. Merely because an injury. has been found on the head, it cannot be assumed that the accused had the intention or knowledge to cause such an injury that had the death been caused, they would have been guilty of murder.

Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code defines Attempt to commit Suicide

Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offense shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. The language of section 309 is very simple and it implies that if someone attempts to commit suicide and if he/she is not successful in achieving his/her object, then he/she may face simple imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.

The Andhra Pradesh High court in Chenna Jagdeshwar V. State of Andhra Pradesh stated that right to die is not a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and hence section 309 of the IPC is not unconstitutional.

In COURT ON OWN MOTION V. YOGESH SHARMA It also stated that there was no justification for a provision like Section 309 Indian Penal Code to be on the statute book. It seems paradoxical that a person who, if the prosecution is to be believed, is so unhappy that he makes an attempt to commit a suicide, should, if he fails in his attempt, instead of being attended to by the medical doctors and psychiatrists, be arrested and roughed through by the police and face criminal courts for all these years which will coarsen him further. The Bench in that case found that the law u/s 167. Criminal Procedure Code

Section 310 of Indian Penal Code 1860 defines Thug

Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall have been habitually associated with any other or others for the purpose of committing robbery or child-stealing by means of or accompanied with murder, is a thug. This section defines as to who is a thug, while punishment for a thug has been provided by section 311. A thug according to section 310, is one who after the passing of this Code shall have been associated as a matter of habit with any other person or persons for the purpose of committing either robbery or child-stealing either by means of murder or accompanied with murder, sections 310 and 311 are similar to the provisions under the Thugee Act, 1836.

The offence of thugee was practised on a large scale in the olden days, but it has become almost extinct now. Habitual association is a necessary ingredient under this section and the purpose of such association must be commission of robbery or child-stealing by means of or accompanied with murder. Since thugee was practised by gangs in the olden days, habitual association has been deliberately made an essential element.

Section 311 in The Indian Penal Code defines Punishment

Punishment under section 311 of indian penal code states that Whoever is a thug, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.In DURGA PADA CHATTERTEE AND ANR. V. NILMANI GHOSE it was held that whatever the explanation may be. the only question which this Court is now called upon to determine is whether the action of the petitioners in preventing Kali Pada’s carts from proceeding along the public road comes within the mischief of Section 311, Indian Penal Code.

Leave a Reply