Facts of the Case

The case involves a woman police constable, X, who was charged under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempting suicide. On March 23, 2022, X, in a state of distress, inflicted a knife wound on her wrist in an attempt to end her life. This act was reportedly triggered by emotional turmoil stemming from an unreciprocated romantic relationship with a married colleague, Y.

X’s actions were reported to the police who was present at the police station during the incident. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against her at the Lakhandur Police Station, Bhandara.

Contentions of the Parties

Applicant’s Contention: X, through her legal counsel, argued that her actions were a result of severe mental stress caused by her unfulfilled romantic relationship with Y. Citing Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, her counsel contended that she should not be prosecuted for attempting suicide because the Act presumes that individuals who attempt suicide are under severe stress and, therefore, should not be subjected to criminal proceedings under Section 309 of the IPC.

Prosecution’s Contention: The prosecution, based on the investigation, maintained that X’s attempt to commit suicide was a deliberate act. However, the prosecution did not present any substantial evidence to counter the statutory presumption of mental stress as provided under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

Court’s Observations:

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court granted relief to X, emphasizing that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, specifically addresses the issue of attempted suicide. The court observed that:

• Presumption of Mental Stress: Section 115(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, provides that any person who attempts suicide shall be presumed to be under severe stress unless proven otherwise. This presumption exempts such individuals from being tried or punished under Section 309 of the IPC.
• Exclusion from Trial: The court noted that while the presumption of stress could be challenged during a trial, the statute itself precludes the initiation of trial proceedings against a person who attempts suicide. The bench stated, “Though it is submitted that during trial the presumption can be lifted, however, the statute itself precludes putting said person on trial.”
• Evaluation of Evidence: After examining the evidence, the court found no indication that X was in a normal mental state at the time of her suicide attempt. The bench highlighted that X’s act of injuring herself was clearly an act committed under mental stress.
• Application of Mental Healthcare Act: The court reiterated that Section 115(1) of the Mental Healthcare Act has an overriding effect on Section 309 of the IPC. Given this, X could not be tried for the offense of attempting suicide.

Based on these observations, the court quashed the FIR lodged against X under Section 309 of the IPC. The court further directed the State to take necessary steps as outlined under Section 115(2) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which mandates the provision of care, treatment, and rehabilitation for individuals who attempt suicide to prevent recurrence.

– Deeksha Rai