It is definitely in the fitness of things that the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Ku. Shital Dinkar Bhagat vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application (APL) No. 783/2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:BHC-NAG:8633-DB that was pronounced as recently as on 05.08.2024 very rightly took the pragmatic step to grant relief to a woman constable who was booked for committing suicide after noting that she took the extreme step under stress and thus her act is exempted from action owing to provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. It is a no-brainer that to penalize a person only serves to make the life of the affected person more miserable by further compounding their mental trauma! How can this grave injustice be ever justified on one pretext or the other?

Truly speaking, we must also certainly note here that a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vinay Joshi and Hon’ble Mrs Justice Vrushali V Joshi of Nagpur Bench quashed a First Information Report (FIR) that was lodged against one Shital Bhagat at the Lakhandur Police Station at Bhandara under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is definitely under most compelling and so also under most trying circumstances that a person decides to commit suicide and in case that person survives going through huge mental torment, he/she certainly requires love, emotional and mental support and care of not just doctors but more than anything else of his/her friends, relatives and all near and dear ones and those who come in contact with him/her in office or other public place instead of just locking him/her in jail and further imposing huge fine which will only serve to precipitate the mental trauma and break him/her mentally to the extent from which it would be next to impossible to recover and therefore it merits no reiteration that this can never be justified under any circumstances! It is felt widely which we need to graciously acknowledge also that attempt to commit suicide must be regarded more as a manifestation of a diseased condition of mind deserving treatment, love and care rather than an offence to be visited with punishment or fine or both which would only serve to further exacerbate the already complicated situation as acknowledged most candidly by leading doctors and psychologists also!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Vinay Joshi for a Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice Vrushali V Joshi and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Heard and then observing in para 2 that:
Admit.

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages in para 3 while elaborating in detail on the facts of this leading judgment stating that:
This is an application seeking to quash First Information Report (FIR’) vide Crime No. 92/2023 registered with Police Station Lakhandur, Tq. Lakhandur, Dist. Bhandara for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was serving as a Police Constable. She has attempted to commit suicide on 23.03.2022 by causing injury at her wrist by knife. The learned counsel appearing for applicant would submit that the applicant was having love affair with married fellow colleague Yuvraj Uike. Since Yuvraj never responded, she under frustration did the act under stress and thus, in view of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (the Act of 2017), she cannot be tried and punish for the offence under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 4 of this robust judgment that:
The Police have carried investigation on the basis of report lodged by P.I. Milind Borkar. It is informant’s case that on 23.03.2022, while he was at Police Station, the applicant came, inquired about Yuvraj Uike who was posted at said Lakhandur Police Station. She was informed that Yuvraj is on long leave of one month, on which she blamed all Police, took knife and caused injury at her wrist and thus, tried to commit suicide.

Most significantly, we then see that the Division Bench then points out commendably in para 5 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that:
During the course of investigation, several statements have been recorded including the statement of Yuvraj. It is his statement that he got married long back with another lady, but love relationship was developed with the applicant. Since wife of Yuvraj resisted for the affair, at her behest he got himself detached from the applicant, switched off his mobile and went to his native place. In the said background, we have examined the material against the applicant. It reveals that she had love affair with Yuvraj, but as she was unable to contact Yuvraj, she took extreme step by causing serious injury at her hand. The Act of 2017 has taken care about the offence of attempted suicide punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. It provides that by the nature of the act itself, such person shall be presumed to be under stress and therefore, he/she shall not be tried and punished. The act of causing injury perhaps life injury to himself/ herself is considered to be an act committed under stress and therefore, he/she has been excluded from the penal consequence unless proved otherwise. Thus, the presumption runs in favour of accused and the contrary is to be proved by the prosecution.

It would be worthwhile to mention that the Division Bench in the fitness of things very rightly points out in para 6 of this commendable judgment that:
The relevant provision of the Act of 2017 reads as under:-

Section 115(1) - Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code.

(2) The appropriate Government shall have a duty to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person, having severe stress and who attempted to commit suicide, to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to commit suicide.

Most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench then candidly pronounces in para 7 holding that:
Thus, is it apparent that the person who tried to commit suicide, enjoys a statutory presumption about mental stress and having regard to such presumption, he has been excluded from putting on trial. Though it is submitted that during trial the presumption can be lifted, however the statute itself precludes to put said person on trial. We have examined material from which we could gather nothing to infer that the applicant was normal and not under stress. It reveals that the applicant though carried knife unpredictably caused injury to herself and thus, it is an instance of committing the act under mental stress. In view of Section 115(1) of the Act of 2017 which has overriding effect to Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant cannot be tried for the offence of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

As a corollary, the Division Bench then expounds in para 8 directing that:
In view of above, application is allowed and disposed of. We hereby quash FIR vide Crime No. 92/2023 registered with Police Station Lakhandur, Tq. Lakhandur, Dist. Bhandara for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding aptly in para 9 that:
The non-applicant/State is directed to take necessary steps as contemplated under Section 115(2) of the Act of 2017.

In a nutshell, it has to be said with certitude that the Bombay High Court has been most forthright, frank and firm in holding very rightly, robustly and rationally that a person who is attempting to commit suicide cannot be penalized in view of the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act. It thus definitely merits no reiteration of any kind that this must be adhered to always in similar such cases by all the Courts in India. We also cannot afford to be oblivious of the irrefutable fact that even the Law Commission of India under the Chairmanship of former Supreme Court Judge and an eminent jurist late Dr AR Lakshmanan in its 210th Report after doing a lot of research had been most categorical in clearly favouring the decriminalization of attempt to commit suicide even though it is an unpalatable truth that in its earlier 156th Report, the Law Commission of India had explicitly favoured the retention of punishment for attempt to commit suicide. But we all who are in the legal arena know it fully well that it is always the later report of the Law Commission of India that holds much more weightage as compared to earlier ones! No denying!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh