Pranav B Prem

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that convicting and sentencing a person under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for other offences is illogical when they have attempted to commit suicide in the course of the same transaction. The Court ruled that under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, such prosecution is barred unless the prosecution proves that the individual was not under severe stress.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan was hearing an appeal filed by a 27-year-old mother, Sharanya, who had been convicted for smothering her 3¾-month-old son and subsequently attempting suicide by inflicting cut injuries on her body using a blade. The Court declared all proceedings against her illegal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur.

The Court observed: “..on a literal interpretation of Section 115(1), it can be stated that any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and cannot be tried and punished for any offences under the IPC. In other words, we may say that Section 115(1) of the Act, creates an embargo in conducting trial and punishing a person, who has attempted to commit suicide, not only for the offence under Section 309 IPC but also for any other offences under IPC committed in the course of the same transaction, unless it is proved that the person accused is not having severe stress… In other words, it is sans logic to convict and sentence an accused under the other provisions of the IPC, when he has attempted to commit suicide during the course of same transaction and has not been proved not having severe stress.”

The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and sentenced to life imprisonment, and under Section 309 (attempt to commit suicide) IPC with simple imprisonment of six months. The defense contended that the conviction could not be sustained in light of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act.

The Public Prosecutor, however, argued that Section 115 applies only to Section 309 IPC and does not bar trials or punishment for any other IPC offences, including Section 302 IPC. The Court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the phrase “under the said Code” used in Section 115(1) encompasses all offences under the IPC, not just Section 309.

The Court stated, “It is very pertinent to note that the legislature has consciously avoided the words such as 'the said provision' or 'the said section' and instead, has specifically stated 'the said Code', while enacting Section 115(1) of the Act. The terminology 'the said Code' used in Section 115(1) undoubtedly refers to Indian Penal Code, which is referred to in the earlier part of the Section.”

The ruling also highlighted the significance of Section 115(2) of the Act, which mandates that the government provide care, treatment, and rehabilitation to persons under severe stress who have attempted suicide. The Court reasoned that if a person is convicted for other offences committed while attempting suicide, they cannot receive the care and protection guaranteed under Section 115(2).

Furthermore, the Court cited Section 120 of the Mental Healthcare Act, which provides that the provisions of the Act will have an overriding effect over any other statute. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India & Another (2018) and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr v. Union of India & Others (2023), which affirmed that individuals under severe stress should receive care, treatment, and rehabilitation instead of penal sanctions.

The High Court noted that the Mental Healthcare Act came into force on July 07, 2018, while the trial was still ongoing. It ruled that the trial court ought to have desisted from proceeding further and pronouncing a judgment against the appellant once the Act came into force. The Court remarked that as no material had been produced to prove that the accused was not under severe stress, the proceedings against her were illegal. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC, ordering her release.

Cause Title:  Sharanya v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl.A No. 1374 OF 2018

Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice P. V. Balakrishnan

[Read/Download order]