The Kerala High Court ruled that convicting and sentencing a person for other offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is legally unsustainable if those offenses occurred during an attempted suicide. The Court highlighted the protection offered by Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which presumes severe stress in individuals attempting suicide, barring prosecution unless proven otherwise.
The decision came during the appeal of Sharanya, a 27-year-old mother convicted of murdering her infant son and subsequently attempting suicide. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, set aside her conviction, reinforcing the legislative intent to treat mental health issues with care rather than punishment.
"Section 115 creates an embargo in conducting trials and punishing a person who attempted suicide for any IPC offense committed in the same transaction, unless it is proven they were not under severe stress," the Court observed.
Case Background
Sharanya was convicted under Sections 302 (murder) and 309 (attempt to commit suicide) of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur. The prosecution argued that despite her suicide attempt, she should face punishment for murder. However, her defense relied on Section 115, asserting that her mental health status during the incident should prevent her conviction.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Extends Stay on Mohammed Zubair's Arrest Until February 27
The trial court proceeded with the case even after the Mental Healthcare Act came into force in 2018. The High Court noted this procedural flaw, emphasizing that the trial should have halted once the Act became law, as the accused's severe stress was presumed by default.
Legal Interpretation of Section 115
Section 115(1) of the Act states:
“Any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code.”
The Court highlighted that the phrase "the said Code" refers to the entire IPC, not just Section 309, meaning the legislative intent was to prevent prosecution for any IPC offense occurring during a suicide attempt. This interpretation aligns with the Act’s objective to provide care and rehabilitation, not punitive measures.
Judicial Precedents and Legislative Intent
The Court referred to Supreme Court rulings in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) and Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2023), which emphasized treating individuals who attempt suicide as victims needing support rather than as criminals.
“The law seeks to align Indian jurisprudence with evolving global standards, recognizing that mental health crises demand care, not incarceration,” the Court stated.
Furthermore, Section 120 of the Act grants it an overriding effect, nullifying conflicting IPC provisions. The Court stressed that punishing a person under IPC after a suicide attempt contradicts the Act’s mandate to provide care and reduce future suicide risk.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction to Baazi Group Against Rogue Websites
Concluding that the trial proceedings post-2018 were illegal, the Court set aside Sharanya’s conviction and ordered her release. This judgment not only upholds mental health rights but also reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to interpreting laws in line with humanitarian principles.
“The judiciary must be sensitive to evolving mental health understandings and ensure that legal interpretations advance justice and compassion,” the Court remarked.
Counsel for Appellant: Advocate K V Sabu
Counsel for Respondents: Special Government Pleader Ambika Devi, Senior Public Prosecutor Neema T V
Case Title: Sharanya v State of Kerala
Case No: CRL.A NO. 1374 OF 2018
