Introduction:

In the case of Sharanya v. State of Kerala (CRL.A NO. 1374 OF 2018), the Kerala High Court ruled that a person who attempts suicide cannot be convicted and sentenced for other offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the acts were committed in the same transaction 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 held that Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, creates a statutory presumption of severe stress for persons attempting suicide, thereby barring prosecution for any offence under IPC in the same transaction. The case involved a 27-year-old mother convicted for smothering her infant son and subsequently attempting suicide. The High Court set aside her conviction and declared the proceedings against her illegal.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant, represented by Advocate K. V. Sabu, argued that her conviction under Sections 302 and 309 of the IPC could not be sustained in light of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. This provision presumes that a person who attempts suicide is under severe stress and cannot be tried or punished under IPC unless proven otherwise. The appellant contended that the trial court erred in convicting her of murder and attempting suicide despite the statutory bar under the Mental Healthcare Act. The defence also pointed out that Section 120 of the Act gives it overriding effect over other statutes, emphasizing that individuals attempting suicide should receive care and rehabilitation rather than penal consequences. On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Special Government Pleader Ambika Devi and Senior Public Prosecutor Neema T. V., argued that Section 115 only applied to Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) and did not restrict prosecution under other IPC provisions, including Section 302 (punishment for murder). The prosecution maintained that since the appellant had committed murder, she should be punished under the IPC irrespective of her subsequent suicide attempt. The State emphasized that Section 115 did not create a blanket exemption from prosecution under all IPC provisions.

Court’s Judgment:

The High Court, interpreting Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, ruled that the phrase “under the said Code” in the provision referred to the entire IPC and not just Section 309. The Court stated that the legislature consciously used the term “the said Code” instead of “the said provision” or “the said section,” indicating a broader legislative intent to bar prosecution for all IPC offences committed during the same transaction as the suicide attempt unless it was proven that the accused was not under severe stress. The Court also referred to Section 115(2) of the Act, which mandates the government to provide care and protection to persons attempting suicide, reinforcing the view that penal sanctions should not apply to them. Additionally, the Court cited Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (2018) and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr v. Union of India (2023), which underscored the importance of rehabilitation over punishment for individuals under severe stress. Noting that the Mental Healthcare Act came into force while the trial was ongoing, the Court held that the trial court should have ceased proceedings against the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction under Sections 302 and 309 IPC was set aside. The Court declared the entire proceedings against the appellant illegal, affirming the statutory protection under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act.