The Law on Suicide

The Law on Suicide by Shreyas Rao

if a person commits suicide, he cannot be tried. but, if he or she makes an attempt to commit suicide, the offender is hauled up and faces trial for violating section 306 of the indian penal code.
but the moot question is whether along with the person who made an unsuccessful suicide attempt, the abetter named in the offence could also be tried. in fact, abetment to commit suicide is an unusual offence, unparalleled in criminal law.
recently a married woman became handicapped after she made an abortive bid to end her life by throwing herself before a running train. she accused her in-laws and husband of harassing her.
the husband and aged in-laws were tried and sentenced by the trial court and the high court on the charge of cruelty over dowry. but, the accused got a reprieve from the supreme court which acquitted them.

section 306 says:``if any person commits suicide, whoever abets it, shall be punished with imprisonment ... upto 10 years ...''. under the ipc, the person who attempted to commit suicide is guilty of the offence whereas the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. section 306 renders the person who abets punishable with the condition precedent that suicide should necessarily have been committed. it is possible to abet the commission of suicide but it would be preposterous if law could afford to penalise an abetment to the offence or mere attempt to commit suicide.
a bench, comprising justice k t thomas and justice s n variava, said, if there is no abetment there is no question of the offence under section 306 coming into play. ``it is inconceivable to have abetment of an abetment'' , the court said. it also failed to understand as to how the accused could be sentenced for cruelty when there was dearth of evidence to link the demand for dowry with the women's suicide attempt.
after all what is dowry? section 304b of ipc defines `dowry' as any property of valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to marriage or by the parents of the party or by any other person to the other party at or any time after the marriage.
but dowry does not include `mehr' in cases relating to marriages solemnised under the muslim personal law (shariat).

sometime ago, the then apex court judges justice k ramaswamy and justice b l hansaria (now dead) said it was a crime to demand dowry before marriage, at the time of marriage and after marriage.
``greed being limitless, the demands become insatiable in many cases, followed by torture on the girl, leading to either suicide in some cases or murder in some,'' the court noted. a large number of aged men and women accused of murdering their daughters-in-law over dowry are reportedly languishing in jails across the country.
should the charge of ``dowry death'' be liberally accepted? or should the charge, howsoever grave it is, stand the test of certain guidelines? these include: death of a married woman should be by burns or bodily injury; second, it must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; third, soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by his relatives ; last, such cruelty or harassment must be or in connection with dowry demands.