Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has held that the Mental Healthcare (MH) Act, 2017, overrides the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and bars the prosecution of individuals for offences committed during the same transaction as a suicide attempt unless it is proven that the person was not under severe stress.

The court, presided over by a Division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, delivered the verdict in a case wherein the appellant/ accused, allegedly killed her 3¾-month-old son, by smothering him and subsequently attempted suicide by inflicting cut injuries on herself using a steel blade.

Referencing the Apex Court’s ruling in Common Cause v. Union of India & Anr (2018), the court noted: “a person who attempts to commit suicide is suffering severe stress (unless the contrary is proved) and he shall not be tried and punished under the Penal Code.” It further reinforced that individuals under severe stress deserve treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment.

The incident occurred on December 1, 2010 and the appellant woman was charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 309 (attempt to commit suicide) of the IPC. The Sessions Court convicted her on November 8, 2018, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 302 IPC, along with six months of simple imprisonment under Section 309 IPC.

The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to present concrete evidence linking her to the crime. It was emphasised that key witnesses turned hostile during the trial. During her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all incriminating evidence and claimed innocence, stating that an intruder had killed her son and injured her. It was argued that this third party intervention was not thoroughly investigated. It was further contended that the trial court had incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, whereas it was the prosecution’s responsibility to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant also pointed out that the prosecution did not establish any motive for the alleged crime, which is an essential element in a murder case. Furthermore, the appellant invoked Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which provides protection to individuals under severe stress from prosecution, including for offences committed during a suicide attempt. It was argued that this provision should apply not only to Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) but also to the murder charge under Section 302 IPC, if the act was part of the same transaction.

Contrarily, the prosecution contended that it has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, presenting a strong chain of medical, forensic, and circumstantial evidence. It was alleged that the appellant was the only person present with the child at the time of the incident, eliminating the possibility of an external intruder. The prosecution further argued that Section 115 applies only to Section 309 IPC and does not bar trials under other IPC sections, including Section 302.

Rejecting the prosecution's contentions, the court clarified 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.” This terminology, the court highlighted, refers to the entire Indian Penal Code, not just Section 309.

The court further observed: “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.”

The court also highlighted Section 120 of the MH Act, which ensures the Act’s provisions override any conflicting statutory provisions.

Ultimately, the court found that  the MH Act came into force on July 7, 2018, during the pendency of the trial. In light of these findings, it held that the Trial Court should have ceased the proceedings under Section 115.

Accordingly, the court declared all proceedings against the appellant as illegal, and set aside her conviction and sentence.

 

Cause Title: Sharanya v. State of Kerala [CRL.A NO. 1374 OF 2018]

Appearance: For the Appellant: Advocate K V Sabu; For the Respondents: Special Government Pleader Ambika Devi, Senior Public Prosecutor Neema T V