CASE ANALYSIS:

MARUTI SHRIPATI DUBAL VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

A Project submitted to

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAVA RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH

Indian Penal Code Project

Submitted to:
Mr.Sagar Chandrakar
Assistant Professor, Indian Penal Code
HNLU, Nava Raipur

Date: August 31, 2023

Submitted by:

Om Uike B.A LL.B (Hons.)

Roll No: 111
Section – C
Semester – V
 DECLARATION

“I, Om Uike, declare that this project titled, “CASE ANALYSIS: MARUTI SHRIPATI
DUBAL VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA” submitted to Hidayatullah National Law
University (Raipur) is record of an original work done by me under the guidance of Mr.Sagar
Chandrakar, Faculty Member, Hidayatullah National University, Raipur and that no part of
this work has been plagiarized.”
 INTRODUCTION

The project gives analysis of the case of “Bombay High court Maruti shripati dubal vs state
of Maharashtra”1, the case discusses the constitutional validity of “S.309 of the Indian Penal
Code 1860”2 which provides for penalty of one year of simple imprisonment, a fine, or both,
for the act of attempting suicide. The constitutionality of the section has been a contentious
issue, and it requires to be upheld in a time when equivalent methods of ending an
individual's life, such as euthanasia, mercy killing, etc., have gained acceptance as an
increasingly common practice. In this case Bombay High Court found “S.309 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860”3 is in violation of “Arts.14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.”4

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, a policeman, became mentally sick as a result of a car accident. He had
schizophrenia, as well as multiple episodes of mental instability and depression. He once
doused himself in kerosene, tried to start a fire with a match, and set himself on fire before
being apprehended by authorities. He was charged with attempting suicide under “section
309 of the IPC”5. The legality of the clause was contested in the case before the Bombay
High Court.

ISSUES RAISED

 The query pertains to the constitutional validity of “Section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code”6, which criminalises the act of attempting suicide.
 The inquiry at hand pertains to the potential liability of the petitioner in relation to the
offence of attempting to commit suicide as outlined in the relevant section.
 Whether the criminal case against respondent should be quashed?

1
1987 Cr LJ 743
2
Indian Penal Code § 309 (1860).
3
Id.
4
Indian Const.
5
supra note 3
6
supra note 3
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

 Attempt to commit suicide cannot constitute offence, as attempt to suicide punishable

under “S.309 of Indian Penal Code” 7 is violative of “Arts. 19 and 21 of the
Constitution.”

 S.309 is in violation of “Art. 14 of the Constitution.” All the cases of attempt to

suicide are treated equally under this section, thus, punishment stipulated in the
section is arbitrary as same measure of punishment is used in every case of attempt of
suicide.

 Punishment provided in S.309 for attempt to suicide is barbaric, cruel, irrational and
self-defeating.

PROSECUTION’S ARGUMENTS

 The prosecution has responded to the initial submission by asserting that neither
Article 19 nor Article 21 establishes or acknowledges the right to life in its entirety.
The sole purpose of their actions is to safeguard against any infringement by the State
upon an individual's right to life, except in cases where such deprivation is carried out
through a lawful procedure that is deemed just, equitable, and reasonable.

 Prosecution countered the second submission by contending that state has no

obligation to classify offenders and thus S.309 is not in contravention of “Art. 14 of
the Constitution.”

 The prosecution has responded to the third submission by asserting that it is within the
State's authority to determine the appropriate sentence. Furthermore, they argue that
the nature and severity of the sentence imposed for the offence cannot be deemed
barbaric, cruel, irrational, or counterproductive. The aforementioned sentence is
intended to serve as a deterrent to potential wrongdoers.

7
supra note 3
 JUDGEMENT

The section was held ultra-vires of the constitution by the court after it determined that S.309
IPC violated Arts. 14, 19, and 21 of the constitution.

 S.309 is violative of section Art. 19 of the Constitution as in the case of “Maneka

Gandhi v. UOI”8, “Kharak Singh v. State of UP”9 and “Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration”10 court held that despite having a negative connotation, the right to
life grants and confers the rights to personal liberty and the preservation of life.
Articles 19 and 21 should be interpreted harmoniously and in connection to one
another.

 The conferment of fundamental rights onto people has both good and bad features.
For example, the concept of freedom of speech and expression comprises both the
right to articulate one's thoughts and opinions, as well as the right to choose not to
speak. Hence, it may be deduced logically that the entitlement to life also involves the
right to voluntary euthanasia. In a positive formulation, it would include the
entitlement to engage in the act of voluntary euthanasia or self-determination of one's
own mortality.

The court reaffirmed its position that taking one's own life cannot be equated with
taking one's own life in an unnatural way because the individual may have worn out
of a wish to live, which is not an unnatural thing to do. The act of dying is part of
living, and it must be viewed in the context of the person's personal circumstances
that are driving him to do so, which should be considered as normal.

8
1978 1 SCC 248
9
AIR 1963 SC 1295
10
1978 4 SCC 494
  “Section 309” is in violation of “Article 14”:

o the term ‘suicide’ has not been defined by the statute anywhere. Owning to
lack of certain definition the section does not differentiate between cases of
attempt to suicide. Thus, making the act arbitrary since the seriousness of an
act constituting attempt to suicide is not equated with the degree of
punishment granted.
o The section does not take into consideration the different mental, physical, and
social situations that might lead individuals to commit suicide and treats all the
cases of attempt to suicide equally.
o The section is counter-productive and self-defeating, as instead of providing
for treatment and aid the section punishes individual who are not in a healthy
state of mind and have lost their interest in life.

In the view of following reasoning, the court annulled “S.309 of the Indian Penal Code” 11 as
it violates “Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.” Consequently, the court dismissed the
petitioner's charges and declared him not accountable under “section 309 IPC.”

11
supra note 3
 CONCLUSION

“Section 309 of the IPC” was repealed by the “Mental Healthcare Act of 2017” 12,
decriminalizing suicide attempts. This is consistent with the Maruti Dubal case's argument
that those who are suicidal should be treated rather than imprisoned. Although it may appear
counterintuitive to reconcile the right to die with the right to life, personal liberty includes the
freedom to put an end to one's existence. The revised legislation protects individual
sovereignty while acknowledging the detrimental effects of suicide on society. Punishment
discretion emphasizes the justice of the law. In summary, the progressive ruling expanded the
right to a meaningful life, insulated people with mental illness from harsh punishment, and
improved their wellbeing.

12
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 2017 (India).