Statutory Obligation Was Lost Sight Of: Kerala HC Quashes Attempt To Suicide Case In Light Of Mental Health Act

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of attempting to suicide inside a lockup, in light of the statutory obligation under the Mental Health Act, 2017 (MH Act) requiring to presume attempters as having severe stress.

The High Court heard a petition under Section 482 (Saving of inherent powers of High Court) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash criminal proceedings under Section 309 (Attempt to commit suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Single judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas expressed “anguish and pain” that instead of providing psychological support to the accused, the police implicated him in another crime, despite realising that he was in mental distress. “The MH Act has, in section 115(2) specifically obliges the State Government to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person, having severe stress and who attempted to commit suicide. This statutory obligation was also completely lost sight of.” the Bench observed.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Mansoor B.H. and the respondent-state was represented by Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A.

The petitioner before the High Court had banged his head inside the lockup after he was arrested for an offence. For this action, the police had registered a case under Section 309 of the IPC. The two questions before the Court were: (i) whether banging the head on a wall could be regarded as an attempt to commit suicide, and (ii) whether the offence under Section 309 IPC will be attracted from the nature of allegations in the final report, after the coming into force of the MH Act.

Section 115 of the MH Act creates a statutory presumption that a person who attempts suicide is under “severe stress”, until proved otherwise, and shall not be tried and punished under Section 309. On this provision, the High Court said that “if a prosecution has to be launched for an attempt to commit suicide, the prosecution themselves must allege and prove that the person was not under any stress when he attempted to commit suicide.”

The Court noted that in the present case, the final report itself alleges that the accused was under mental distress for having been arrested, and hence, had started banging his head on the pillar inside the lockup. “Thus the uncontroverted allegations in the final report itself makes the petitioner immune from prosecution for the offence under section 309 IPC.” the Court observed.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Simi C.N. v. State of Kerala (2022) had stated that "criminal prosecution followed by conviction and imposing substantive sentences and fines on those convicted of suicidal behaviours constitute an affront to human dignity" and suicidal behaviour is typically a symptom of psychiatric illness or an act of psychological distress, suggesting that the person requires assistance in his personal and psychological life, not punishment with imprisonment or fine.

On the question of whether banging one’s head against a wall could count as an attempt to suicide, the High Court, noting that material on record does not indicate any injury to the head, observed that “merely because petitioner banged his head on a wall inside the lockup, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was attempting to commit suicide.”

Prosecuting the petitioner under Section 309 of the IPC is an "abuse of the process of court," the High Court concluded, quashing the prosecution.

Cause Title: Naveed Raza v. State of Kerala [Neutral Citation | 2024:KER:69658]

Appearance: 

Petitioner: Advocates Mansoor B.H. and Janet Job 

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A.

Click here to read/download the Order