JYOTI BAI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
®
CNR: KAHC010386162025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8281 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)
/ 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN
JYOTI BAI
W/O OMBEER SINGH PARMAR,
AGED 37 YEARS,
R/O DOOR NO. D-2,
SUARPANIKA HOUSE,
CISF TOWNSHIP,
NEAR MRPL,
SURATKAL DISTRICT,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-575014
KARNATAKA.
ALSO AS PER FIR
ACHARI,
SUB INSPECTOR,
CISF UNIT, NMPA,
PANAMNUR,
MANGALORE-575010
PRESENTLY AT
D-1/70, PALAM EXTENSION,
SECTOR 7, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110075
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: TARUNN SURANA., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PANAMBUR POLICE STATION,
MANGALORE-575011
REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. K P RAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
POLICE OFFICER,
CISF UNIT, NMPA,
PANAMNUR,
MANGALORE-575010
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR N., HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528
BNSS) CR.P.C BY PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.12.2024 IN THE
CRIMINAL CASE BEARING NO.2422/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE
HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS II (JMFC) MANGALURU
AND ETC..
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.10.2026, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector with the
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), is before
this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
a. Allow the present Petition and set aside the
impugned Order dated 26.12.2024 in the Criminal
Case bearing No. 2422 of 2023 pending before the
Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First Class II (JMFC),
Mangalore;
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
b. Call for the records in C.C. No. 2422/2023
pending before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First
Class II (JMFC), Mangalore; and
c. Quash the entire proceeding in C.C. No.
2422/2023 for offence under section 309 of IPC
registered by the Panambur Police Station,
Mangalore which is pending before the Hon'ble
Judicial Magistrate First Class II (JMFC),
Mangalore;
d. Pass any other order and directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice.
2. The Petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the
order dated 26.12.2024 in C.C.No.2422/2023
dismissing the application filed by her under Section
239 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 115 of the Mental
Health Care Act 2017 (for short hereinafter referred
to as “ MHC Act, 2017 ”). The case of the prosecution
is that the Petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector in the
CISF, was deputed at the NMPA-Mangalore,
Karnataka. On 12.10.2022 when she was posted as a
shift-in-charge at Mallya Gate from 0600 Hrs to 1300
Hrs, she attempted to commit suicide by firing one
round from a 9 mm pistol at her abdomen at around
06:10 hours.
3. After the incident, the Petitioner was admitted to AJ
Hospital, where a major surgery was undertaken and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
she was put in the surgical ICU from 12.10.2022 to
20.12.2022 and discharged on 24.11.2022. Due to
the nature of the incident, the medical expenses
were not borne by the CISF/Government. She had to
bear the entire medical expenses of ₹5,00,000/-
from her own pocket.
4. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against
the Petitioner, and she was punished with a major
penalty of reduction of one stage of pay for lifetime
and no promotion for the next five years.
5. On account of the abovesaid incident, on a complaint
filed by the CISF Constable, a case was registered
under Section 309 of the IPC against the Petitioner.
An FIR in Crime No.70 of 2022 was filed, cognizance
was taken, and the case was registered in
C.C.No.2422 of 2023. The Petitioner filed an
application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., read
with Section 115 of the MHC Act, 2017.
6. The submission of Sri.Tarunn Surana, learned
counsel for the Petitioner, is that:
6.1. The case involves a sensitive personal and
medical history. The petitioner was about 36
years of age at the time of the incident and was
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
under severe mental distress on account of her
inability to conceive. It is submitted that, after
years of unsuccessful treatment, she developed
severe depression and, in that state of mind,
used her service pistol to shoot herself in the
abdomen, directing the shot towards the part of
her body which she associated with her inability
to bear a child.
6.2. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner
was married in 2015 and had been unable to
conceive for more than eight years. She had
been informed that she suffered from a blocked
fallopian tube and that this condition would
prevent her from conceiving. In an effort to
have a child, she consulted doctors at Kolkata,
Jaipur and Mumbai and underwent IVF
treatment between 2020 and 2022. Despite
these efforts, she was unsuccessful. The
continuing disappointment and distress arising
from her inability to conceive eventually led her
to take the extreme step of inflicting a gunshot
injury upon herself.
6.3. Learned Counsel submits that the allegation,
even according to the prosecution, is one of an
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
attempt to commit suicide and that the
statutory protection under Section 115 of the
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, is therefore
directly attracted. He relies upon the said
provision, which reads as follows:
115. Presumption of severe stress in case of
attempt to commit suicide.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of
the Indian Penal Code 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.
(2) The appropriate Government shall have a duty to
provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person,
having severe stress and who attempted to commit
suicide, to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to
commit suicide.
6.4. By relying upon Section 115, learned Counsel
submits that the provision creates a statutory
presumption that a person who attempts to
commit suicide is suffering from severe stress,
unless the contrary is established. The use of
the expression “shall be presumed” makes the
presumption mandatory, and the further
direction that such person “shall not be tried
and punished under the said Code” protects the
person from prosecution and punishment under
the IPC, unless the presumption is rebutted.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
6.5. Learned Counsel advances two submissions in
this regard.
6.5.1. First, the petitioner is entitled to the
presumption of innocence, and the
prosecution must establish the ingredients
of the offence alleged against her.
6.5.2. Secondly, and more importantly, Section
115 of the Mental Healthcare Act provides
a specific statutory protection in cases of
attempted suicide. The petitioner is
entitled to the presumption of severe
stress, and the burden lies upon the
prosecution to establish otherwise. In the
absence of material rebutting that
presumption, the petitioner cannot be
subjected to trial and punishment under
Section 309 of the IPC.
6.6. Learned Counsel further submits that the
protection under Section 115 ought to have
been considered at the very stage when the
Investigating Officer examined the material and
decided whether to prosecute the petitioner. It
was also required to be considered by the
learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
in any event, when the petitioner sought
discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC.
Neither the Investigating Officer nor the learned
Magistrate considered the statutory
presumption or its consequence. The petitioner
could not have been prosecuted under Section
309 of the IPC without first giving effect to the
mandate of Section 115 of the Mental
Healthcare Act, 2017
6.7. He relies upon the decision of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court dated 13.09.2022 in Manoj
Kumar vs. State of Karnataka
[Crl.P.No.200775 of 2022], more particularly
paragraphs 26, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 thereof,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
26. Therefore, in view of the object and reasons
in bringing New Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and
in view section 115 in the said Act which raises
presumption in favour of a person attempting to
commit suicide, it is necessary to refer section
115. It reads as under:
Section 115. Presumption of severe stress in
case of attempt to commit suicide.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) any person who attempts to commit
suicide shall be presumed, unless proved
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be
tried and punished under the said Code.
(2) The appropriate Government shall have a
duty to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation
to a person, having severe stress and who
attempted to commit suicide, to reduce the risk
of recurrence of attempt to commit suicide."
It is evident that said section starts with non-
obstante clause, meaning thereby, unless the
Investigating Officer is satisfied that attempt to
suicide is not under severe stress, he cannot
proceed to register the case. In the light of
above referred section 115, it is to be seen
whether continuation of proceedings against the
Petitioner is abuse of process of court needs to
be quashed by the court in the ends of justice.
37. Suicide is more of a concept related to
moral, religious and psychological qualities of the
person in the existing socio – economic and
cultural circumstances of the society. Instead of
having sympathetic approach towards the victim,
if further punishment would be inflicted upon
him, it would be simply ruthless act. The very
essence of section 309 IPC also doesn’t mandate
for punishment in every case, rather it only sets
the higher limit of such punishment. The courts
are endowed with enormous power to ensure
that unnecessary harsh dealing or injustice is not
caused to the victims who are under severe
mental stress. It is to be remembered that the
life of a human being is very important.
38. It is to be noted here that after coming into
force of new Mental Healthcare act 2017, the
implementation of provisions of the said act
appears to be not significant. Though there are
developments in the Judicial decisions by
invoking the provisions of the said act to safe
guard the persons with mental illness and stress
but the concerned authorities and organizations
appears to be slow in implementation of the act
in its letter and spirit. It is stated that the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
National Judicial Academy and State Judicial
Academies in the country are conducting regular
Seminars and Workshops on the Mental
Healthcare Act 1987. There are rise in the cases
of attempt to commit suicide in the last few
years as per the data from the National Crime
Records Bureau. Day in and day out we see both
in print and electronic media, the people
committing suicide for silly and inconceivable
reasons. Though one cannot define the reasons
for attempt to commit suicide but broadly the
reasons can be categorized as unemployment,
isolation stress, academic failures, financial
difficulties, debt, family and relationship issues,
helplessness, depression, fright desperation,
other Psychological disorders and frustration. It
is high time that the Police authorities, medical
professionals, the welfare associations, the civil
society groups and other stake holders needs to
be sensitized regarding the object and reasons
for enacting Mental Healthcare Act 2017 and take
such remedial measures to address an act of
attempt to commit suicide.
39. It is the duty of the society and the
stakeholders concerned to find out the reasons
for such an attempt and try to bring him/her to
the main stream of the society. Such persons
needs to be treated with sympathy, care and
love.
40. It is not that the Petitioner intended to get
some favorable decisions or order in his favour or
he was instigated by some other external force
to commit such an act in order to threaten,
intimidate or harass the School management
members. It is not motivated by any group or
association so as to bring undue influence or to
take coercive measurement on the management
to head to his request. If the act is committed by
the Petitioner under any of the above stated
circumstances then such an act should be viewed
differently. Because there are instances and
incidents where in people attempt to commit
suicide just to force the authorities or persons to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
comply with their request or demand, whether
legitimate or not and go on disturbing the public
peace and cause disorder in the society. In this
case, the alleged act was not to blackmail
anybody or intimidate any person. The act of the
Petitioner is not to create a public disorder. The
circumstances which forced the Petitioner
attempt to commit suicide are totally different.
Such an act does not attract the offence under
section 09 of the IPC in view of section 115 of
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
41. In the light of the principles stated in the
above referred decisions and discussion if the
allegation against the Petitioner is considered, in
my considered view, continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the Petitioner is nothing but
wasting the judicial time. Therefore, the FIR
registered against the Petitioner, the charge
sheet filed, the cognizance taken, the process
issued against the Petitioner and subjecting the
Petitioner for ordeal of undergoing the trial is
nothing but an abuse of process of court. Such
proceedings deserves to be quashed to secure
ends of justice
6.8. By relying on Manoj Kumar’s case, his
submission is that the Co-ordinate Bench,
having considered the scope and effect of
Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017,
held that continuation of criminal proceedings
against a person who attempts to commit
suicide, in circumstances attracting the
statutory presumption of severe stress, would
amount to an abuse of the process of Court. He
submits that the same principle applies to the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
petitioner and that the proceedings against her
are liable to be quashed.
6.9. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in P Rathinam vs. Union of India [AIR
1994 SC 1844], more particularly paragraphs
109, 110 and 111 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
109. On the basis of what has been held and
noted above, we state that Section 309 of the
Penal Code deserves to be effaced from the
statute book to humanise our penal laws. It is a
cruel and irrational provision, and it may result in
punishing a person again (doubly) who has
suffered agony and would be undergoing
ignominy because of his failure to commit
suicide. Then an act of suicide cannot be said to
be against religion, morality or public policy, and
an act of attempted suicide has no baneful effect
on society. Further, suicide or attempt to commit
it causes no harm to others, because of which
State's interference with the personal liberty of
the persons concerned is not called for.
110. We, therefore, hold that Section 309
violates Article 21, and so, it is void. May it be
said that the view taken by us would advance not
only the cause of humanisation, which is a need
of the day, but of globalisation also, as by
effacing Section 309, we would be attuning this
part of our criminal law to the global wavelength.
111. The writ petitions stand allowed by
declaring Section 309 of the Penal Code as
unconstitutional and hence void. The proceedings
in GR Case No. 177 of 1984 (State v.
Nagbhushan Patnaik) pending in the Court of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
Sub-Judge, Gunpur in the District of Koraput,
Orissa stands quashed.
6.10. By relying on P Rathinam’s case, his
submission is that the Hon'ble Apex Court had
categorically stated that Section 309 of the
Penal Code deserves to be effaced from the
statute book to humanize the penal laws by
holding that it was cruel and irrational
provision; and may result in punishing a person
again (doubly) who has suffered agony and
would be undergoing ignominy because of his
failure to commit suicide.
6.11. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Kerala High Court in Simi C.N. v. State of
Kerala , [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 2184], more
particularly paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 thereof,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
8. The legality and correctness of the provision
punishing attempt to commit suicide have always
been subject matter of hot discussion in judicial
circle from decades. It is to be remembered that
the Law Commission of India during 1970-1971 in
nd
the 42 report had recommended the deletion of
offence of the attempt to commit suicide from the
Penal Code. During 1978-'79 the recommendation
was virtually accepted by the Government of
India. But before amendments could be brought
in, the Lok Sabha was dissolved in 1979 and the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
Bill got lapsed. In 1985, in State v. Sanjay Kumar
Bhatia [1985 SCC OnLine Del 134], the Delhi High
Court condemned the penal provision as ‘unworthy
of human society’. In 1986, the Bombay High
Court held it to be ultravires on the ground that it
violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. A two judge bench of the Supreme Court
in P. Rathinam v. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC
394] struck down Section 309 of IPC (attempt to
suicide) as unconstitutional. However, in 1996 a
five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Gian
Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1996) 2 SCC 648]
overruled the decision in Rathinam holding that
the right to life does not include right to die and
upheld the validity of Section 309. It is to be
mentioned that in 2008 the Law Commission again
favoured scrapping of Section 309 of the IPC in its
th
210 report on ‘Humanization and
decriminalization of attempt to suicide’. The
Supreme Court in Common Cause (A registered
society) v. Union of India [(2018) 5 SCC 1] had
recommended the Parliament to consider
decriminalizing attempt to suicide, saying the
provision had become anachronistic while giving
guidelines to passive euthanasia. It also appears
that majority of the States have agreed to the
proposal to bring amendment to Section 309 IPC.
The Act had brought into force and notified on
07.04.2017 in such a backdrop.
9. It being a recent enactment, authorities on the
subject are very few. However, I have come
across the decisions of Orissa and Himachal
Pradesh High Courts in which prosecutions
initiated under Section 309 IPC have been
quashed by the High Courts. In Pratibha
Das v. State of Orissa [2019 SCC OnLine Ori 217],
a learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court has
quashed the proceedings in the light of Section
115 of the Act stating that proceedings cannot be
continued for want of criminal intent. Similarly, in
a detailed judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High
Court, a learned Single Judge in Pratibha
Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2019 SCC
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
OnLine HP 2619] has taken the same view and
held that proceedings is a sheer abuse of the
process of law. Incidentally, I have also come
across an order dated 11.09.2020 of a Full Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Red Lynx
Confederation v. Union of India [2020 SCC OnLine
Del 733] where the prayer is for directions to
ensure prevention of attempts to commit suicide
by persons by throwing themselves in the animal
enclosures in zoos. The Supreme Court has
observed that Section 115 of the Act which
creates a presumption, has an impact on Section
309 IPC. Now notices have been issued to
Government of India and others and the matter is
tagged with the Writ Petition pending challenging
the constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC.
10. It is also apposite to quote the following
paragraph in Common Cause, quoted supra, which
reads thus:
“366. This Court's holding in Gian Kaur that the
right to life does not include the right to die in the
context of suicide may require to be revisited in
future in view of domestic and international
developments pointing towards decriminalisation
of suicide. In India, the Mental Healthcare Act
2017 has created a “presumption of severe stress
in cases of attempt to commit suicide”. Section
115(1) provides thus:
“ 115. Presumption of severe stress in case of
attempt to commit suicide.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 309
of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) 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.”
Under, the Act also mandates the Government to
provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to a
person, having severe stress and who attempted
to commit suicide, to reduce the risk of
recurrence. Section 115 begins with a non-
obstante provision, specifically with reference to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
Section 309 of the Penal Code. It mandates
(unless the contrary is proved by the prosecution)
that a person who attempts to commit suicide is
suffering from severe stress. Such a person shall
not be tried and punished under the Penal Code.
Section 115 removes the element of culpability
which attaches to an attempt to commit suicide
under Section 309. It regards a person who
attempts suicide as a victim of circumstances and
not an offender, at least in the absence of proof to
the contrary, the burden of which must lie on the
prosecution. Section 115 marks a pronounced
change in our law about how society must treat
and attempt to commit suicide. It seeks to align
Indian law with emerging knowledge on suicide,
by treating a person who attempts suicide being in
need of care, treatment and rehabilitation rather
than penal sanctions.”
11. To put it in other words, decriminalisation of
attempt to commit suicide is the general view of
Courts and legal luminaries. Criminal prosecution
followed by conviction and imposing substantive
sentences and fine on those convicted of suicidal
behaviors are believed to constitute an affront to
human dignity. It is believed that a large section
of the society considers that suicidal behaviour is
typically a symptom of psychiatric illness or an act
of psychological distress, suggesting that the
person requires assistance in his personal and
psychological life, not punishment with
imprisonment or fine. Medical circles also believe
that it is not an offence against the State, but, on
the contrary, the State itself may be indirectly
responsible for the plight of the victim who is left
with no other alternative, except to end his life.
From a societal perspective, decriminalization is a
more sensitive and humane way of dealing with
the problem compared to prosecution.
Additionally, it will also help in ‘improving the
reporting and generation of better epidemiological
data on suicidal behaviour.’ What is important is
to give sociological and psychological support to
the victim rather than trying to punish him. That is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
why it was opined by one of the Hon'ble members
of the Parliament in the discussion that the police
should be trained to understand that an attempt
to commit suicide is a cry for help and not a
crime.
6.12. By relying on Simi C. N’s case, his submission
is that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court considered
other decisions of the Orissa High Court and
Himachal Pradesh High Court and quashed
proceedings under Section 309 in view of
Section 115 of the MHC Act.
6.13. Lastly, he submits that Section 309 of the IPC,
does not find a place in the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 which came into force on
01.07.2024. Thus, the recommendation of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in P Rathinam’s case has
been given effect to by the Parliament while
introducing the BNS. This aspect would have to
be taken into consideration by this Court, so as
to quash the proceedings under Section 309 of
the IPC against the Petitioner.
7. Sri.Ranjith Kumar.N., learned HCGP, would support
the order passed by the trial Court.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
8. Heard Sri.Tarunn Surana, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, and Sri. Ranjith Kumar.N., learned HCGP
for Respondent-State. Perused papers.
9. The points that would arise for determination are:
i. Whether the introduction of Section 115
would negate or efface the offence under
Section 309 of the IPC?
ii. Whether the presumption under Section 115
of the Mental Health Care Act is required to
be considered at the time of filing of the
charge sheet or at the time when an
application for discharge is filed before the
trial Court?
iii. Whether the impugned order passed by
the trial Court in C.C No. 2422 of 2023
suffers from any infirmity requiring
interference at the hands of this Court?
iv. What order?
10. This Court answers the above points as follows:
11. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the introduction
of Section 115 would negate or efface the
offence under Section 309 of the IPC?
11.1. Section 309 of the IPC is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference;
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
309. Attempt to commit suicide.—
Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does
any act towards the commission of such offence,
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one year or with fine,
or with both .
11.2. A plain reading of Section 309 indicates that
the provision penalises a person who attempts
to commit suicide and does an act towards the
commission of that act. It contemplates an
attempt which does not result in the person's
death. The provision must, however, be read in
the light of the subsequent enactment of
Section 115 of the MHC Act, 2017, which
specifically addresses the circumstances of a
person who attempts to commit suicide.
11.3. Section 115(1) of the MHC Act, 2017 begins
with a non-obstante clause referring specifically
to Section 309 of the IPC. It provides that a
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 IPC. The expression “shall
be presumed” is mandatory. Once the fact of an
attempt to commit suicide is established, the
presumption of severe stress must be drawn.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
The person concerned is not required, in the
first instance, to independently establish severe
stress by producing medical evidence. The
burden of establishing the contrary rests upon
the prosecution.
11.4. Section 115 places the burden of rebutting the
presumption upon the prosecution, the
provision removes the element of culpability
which attaches to an attempt to commit suicide
under Section 309 of the IPC and requires a
person who attempts suicide to be regarded as
a victim of circumstances, rather than as an
offender, in the absence of proof to the
contrary. The legislative approach is to treat
such a person as one in need of care, treatment
and rehabilitation, rather than penal sanctions.
11.5. The MHC Act, 2017, has been brought into
force with the object and purpose of providing
mental healthcare and services to persons with
mental illness and protecting, promoting and
fulfilling their rights during the delivery of such
care and services. Section 115 gives effect to
that object in the specific context of an attempt
to commit suicide. The presumption contained
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
in the provision is not a matter of discretion for
the Investigating Officer or the Court. It must
be given effect to unless the prosecution
establishes material to rebut it.
11.6. Sub-section (2) of Section 115 imposes a duty
upon the appropriate Government to provide
care, treatment and rehabilitation to a person
who has severe stress and has attempted to
commit suicide, with a view to reducing the risk
of recurrence. This obligation is consistent with,
and reinforces, the protection under sub-section
(1). The two provisions reflect a legislative
choice to address attempted suicide primarily
through care, treatment and rehabilitation,
rather than through penal consequences. The
statutory protection under sub-section (1)
cannot be reduced to a mere mitigating
circumstance to be considered at the stage of
sentence. It expressly provides that, so long as
the presumption remains unrebutted, the
person shall not be tried and punished under
the IPC.
11.7. It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish
between the continued existence of Section 309
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
in the IPC and its applicability to a person
protected by Section 115 of the MHC Act, 2017.
Section 115 does not repeal or efface Section
309 from the statute book. It qualifies the
operation of that provision by creating a
mandatory and rebuttable presumption of
severe stress and expressly prohibiting the trial
and punishment of a person under the IPC
while that presumption remains unrebutted.
Thus, in the absence of material establishing
the contrary, a person who has attempted to
commit suicide cannot be subjected to trial or
punishment under Section 309 of the IPC.
11.8. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered by holding
that Section 115 of the MHC Act, 2017 does not
repeal or efface Section 309 of the IPC, but it
displaces the operation of Section 309 in
respect of a person who has attempted to
commit suicide and is presumed to be under
severe stress, unless the prosecution rebuts
that presumption.
12. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the
presumption under Section 115 of the Mental
Healthcare Act is required to be considered at
the time of filing of the charge sheet or at the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
time when an application for discharge is filed
before the trial Court?
12.1. Section 100 of the MHC Act, 2017 reads as
under:
100. (1) Every officer in-charge of a police
station shall have a duty––
(a) to take under protection any person found
wandering at large within the limits of the police
station whom the officer has reason to believe
has mental illness and is incapable of taking care
of himself; or
(b) to take under protection any person within
the limits of the police station whom the officer
has reason to believe to be a risk to himself or
others by reason of mental illness.
(2) The officer in-charge of a police station shall
inform the person who has been taken into
protection under sub-section (1), the grounds for
taking him into such protection or his nominated
representative, if in the opinion of the officer
such person has difficulty in understanding those
grounds.
(3) Every person taken into protection under
sub-section (1) shall be taken to the nearest
public health establishment as soon as possible
but not later than twenty-four hours from the
time of being taken into protection, for
assessment of the person’s healthcare needs.
(4) No person taken into protection under sub-
section (1) shall be detained in the police lock up
or prison in any circumstances.
(5) The medical officer in-charge of the public
health establishment shall be responsible for
arranging the assessment of the person and the
needs of the person with mental illness will be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
addressed as per other provisions of this Act as
applicable in the particular circumstances.
(6) The medical officer or mental health
professional in-charge of the public mental health
establishment if on assessment of the person finds
that such person does not have a mental illness of
a nature or degree requiring admission to the
mental health establishment, he shall inform his
assessment to the police officer who had taken the
person into protection and the police officer shall
take the person to the person’s residence or in case
of homeless persons, to a Government
establishment for homeless persons.
(7) In case of a person with mental illness who is
homeless or found wandering in the community, a
First Information Report of a missing person shall
be lodged at the concerned police station and the
station house officer shall have a duty to trace the
family of such person and inform the family about
the whereabouts of the person.
12.2. Section 100 of the MHC Act, 2017 casts specific
duties upon the officer in-charge of a police
station in the circumstances set out therein. It
requires the police officer to take a person
under protection where the statutory conditions
are satisfied and to ensure that the person is
taken to a public health establishment for
assessment.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
12.3. Though the provision does not specifically deal
with a person who has attempted to commit
suicide, it reflects the protective approach
adopted by the legislature towards persons who
may be suffering from mental illness and may
pose a risk to themselves or others.
12.4. The presumption of severe stress under Section
115, however, operates independently. It is not
necessary for a person who has attempted to
commit suicide to first establish that he or she
suffers from a diagnosed mental illness or to
satisfy the conditions stipulated under Section
100. Once an attempt to commit suicide is
established, the presumption under Section 115
must be given effect to.
12.5. The Investigating Officer, therefore, must
consider the statutory presumption at the stage
of investigation itself. The presumption cannot
be ignored on the ground that the person
concerned has not produced medical evidence
of severe stress. The burden of establishing the
contrary rests upon the prosecution. The
Investigating Officer is required to examine the
circumstances in which the attempt is alleged
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
to have been made and collect material, if any,
which may rebut the presumption. The decision
to file a charge sheet under Section 309 of the
IPC must be taken after giving effect to Section
115 and considering whether the material
collected establishes the contrary.
12.6. This does not mean that registration of an FIR
or investigation is prohibited in every case
where an attempt to commit suicide is alleged.
The investigation may be necessary to ascertain
the circumstances of the incident and whether
any material exists to rebut the statutory
presumption. However, the investigation and
the decision to prosecute must proceed in
accordance with the mandate of Section 115.
12.7. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is
concerned, Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. reads as
under:
239. When accused shall be discharged.
If, upon considering the police report and the
documents sent with it under Section 173 and
making such examination, if any, of the accused
as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after
giving the prosecution and the accused an
opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate
considers the charge against the accused to be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and
record his reasons for so doing.
12.8. A perusal of Section 239 indicates that the
Magistrate is required to consider the police
report and the documents accompanying it,
hear the prosecution and the accused and
determine whether the charge is groundless.
While undertaking this exercise in a prosecution
under Section 309 of the IPC, the Magistrate
cannot overlook the statutory presumption
under Section 115 of the MHC Act, 2017.
12.9. The Magistrate must examine whether the
material placed by the prosecution contains
anything capable of rebutting the presumption
of severe stress. The statutory burden cannot
be shifted to the accused by requiring her to
establish, at the stage of discharge, that she
was suffering from severe stress.
12.10. Thus, the obligation to give effect to Section
115 arises at both stages. The Investigating
Officer must take the presumption into account
while conducting the investigation and deciding
whether to file a charge sheet under Section
309 of the IPC.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
12.11. If a charge sheet is nevertheless filed, the
Magistrate must independently consider the
statutory presumption while deciding an
application for discharge under Section 239 of
the Cr.P.C. If the prosecution material does not
contain anything capable of rebutting the
presumption, the charge under Section 309
would be groundless and the accused would be
entitled to discharge.
12.12. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered by holding
that the presumption under Section 115 of the
MHC Act, 2017 is required to be considered by
the Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation and while deciding whether to file
a charge sheet under Section 309 of the IPC.
The Magistrate is equally required to consider
the said presumption while deciding an
application for discharge under Section 239 of
the Cr.P.C.
13. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the impugned
order passed by the trial Court in C.C No. 2422
of 2023 suffers from any infirmity requiring
interference at the hands of this Court?
13.1. In the present case, the allegation against the
petitioner is that, on 12.10.2022, while posted
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
as shift-in-charge at Mallya Gate, she fired one
round from her service pistol at her own
abdomen. The petitioner sustained serious
injuries and underwent major surgery. The
incident is thus one of an attempt by the
petitioner to take her own life.
13.2. The circumstances leading to the incident
assume significance while considering the
statutory presumption under Section 115 of the
MHC Act, 2017. The petitioner was married in
2015 and had been unable to conceive for
several years. She was informed that she had a
blocked fallopian tube and that the condition
would affect her ability to conceive. She
consulted doctors at Kolkata, Jaipur and
Mumbai and underwent IVF treatment between
2020 and 2022. Despite these efforts, she was
unsuccessful.
13.3. The fact that the petitioner fired at her own
abdomen is particularly relevant when
considered in the background of this medical
history. The abdomen was the part of her body
which she associated with her inability to
conceive. The site of the gunshot injury,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation from
the medical condition and the treatment she
had undergone. It lends support to the
petitioner's explanation that the act arose out
of the severe personal distress caused by her
inability to conceive. The fact that she directed
the firearm at herself, and specifically at the
part of her body which she associated with her
infertility, is a circumstance consistent with the
statutory presumption of severe stress under
Section 115.
13.4. The petitioner suffered serious injuries as a
result of the gunshot and was required to
undergo major surgery and prolonged
hospitalisation. These circumstances also have
to be considered in their proper context. The
material placed before this Court does not
indicate that the petitioner fired the weapon
with an intention to threaten, coerce or compel
any other person, or that she intended to cause
harm to anyone other than herself. The
allegation is that she attempted to take her
own life in the circumstances stated above.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
13.5. The fact that the petitioner was on duty and
used her service firearm is a relevant
circumstance. However, neither the use of a
service firearm nor the fact that the petitioner
was on duty, by itself, rebuts the presumption
of severe stress. On the contrary, the
circumstances surrounding the incident,
including the location of the injury and the
petitioner's medical history, lend support to the
inference that the act was connected with her
personal distress. The prosecution has not
placed any material capable of rebutting the
statutory presumption.
13.6. The learned Magistrate, while considering the
petitioner's application for discharge under
Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., was required to
examine the material on record in the light of
Section 115 of the MHC Act, 2017. The
impugned order dated 26.12.2024 does not
consider the effect of the statutory presumption
or examine whether the prosecution material
contains anything capable of rebutting it. It also
does not consider the circumstances in which
the petitioner sustained the gunshot injury,
including the medical history relied upon by her.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
13.7. The failure to consider the mandate of Section
115 goes to the root of the matter. Once the
statutory presumption is applied, and in the
absence of material placed by the prosecution
to rebut it, the charge under Section 309 of the
IPC cannot be sustained. The petitioner is,
therefore, entitled to be discharged from the
said offence.
13.8. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in the
affirmative. The impugned order dated
26.12.2024 passed by the learned JMFC II,
Mangaluru, in C.C. No.2422 of 2023 suffers
from an infirmity warranting interference by
this Court.
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
13.9. Before parting, this Court considers it necessary
to address the mental health and overall well-
being of personnel serving in the police and
other security forces. The present case
concerns a Sub-Inspector in the CISF who, by
virtue of her official duties, had access to a
service firearm which she used in an attempt to
take her own life.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
13.10. Personnel serving in these forces are also
human beings. They have families,
relationships, responsibilities and personal
problems. They experience grief, anxiety,
financial difficulties, marital discord, illness in
the family and other difficulties common to
human life. Wearing a uniform or undergoing
rigorous training does not make them immune
to such problems. The expectation that they
must remain available for duty at all times and
discharge their responsibilities, come rain or
shine, irrespective of their personal
circumstances or mental condition, requires a
change in institutional thinking. Discipline and
dedication are essential, but they cannot be
demanded at the cost of ignoring the basic
human needs of personnel.
13.11. The responsibility of an organisation does not
end with assigning duties and expecting them
to be performed. It must also take reasonable
steps to look after the physical and mental well-
being of its personnel. The nature of their
duties, difficult postings, prolonged separation
from families, irregular working hours and
operational pressures may compound personal
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
difficulties. Personnel must have an
environment in which they can seek assistance
without stigma or fear of adverse
consequences. Their need for counselling,
treatment, family support, rest or temporary
relief from particular duties must be recognised
and addressed.
13.12. At the same time, mental health is directly
connected with operational readiness and public
safety, particularly in the case of personnel
entrusted with firearms. The authorities must
have appropriate systems for assessing the
mental health and fitness of such personnel,
both before entrusting firearms and periodically
thereafter, with provision for reassessment
whenever circumstances so warrant. Suitable
procedures must also exist for regulating access
to firearms where a genuine safety concern
arises, while ensuring that such preventive
measures do not become punitive or result in
automatic exclusion from service.
13.13. The concerned organisations must ensure that
accessible and confidential counselling,
professional mental health care and timely
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
treatment are available to personnel at all
levels, including those posted in remote and
difficult locations. Commanding and supervisory
officers must be sensitised to recognise signs of
distress and facilitate appropriate assistance.
Personnel who undergo treatment or experience
mental health difficulties must also receive
suitable support for rehabilitation and return to
duty, based on professional assessment.
13.14. The welfare of personnel and the security of the
public are not competing considerations. A force
which looks after the mental and physical well-
being of its personnel is better equipped to
maintain discipline, operational readiness and
public safety. Personnel entrusted with
protecting the lives and safety of others must
themselves be provided care, support and
reasonable assistance when they face personal
or mental health difficulties.
13.15. The concerned authorities are, therefore, called
upon to examine their existing policies and take
appropriate steps to strengthen the mental
health and welfare measures for personnel
serving in the armed forces, police and other
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
security organisations, while also ensuring the
safe and responsible use of firearms.
13.16. The Registry shall forward a copy of this order
to the Director General, CISF; the Director
General of Police, Karnataka; and the heads of
other State organisations having personnel
entrusted with firearms, for their information
and consideration.
14. Answer to point No.4: What order?
In view of the above, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 26.12.2024 in the Criminal
Case bearing No.2422 of 2023 passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class II (JMFC),
Mangalore is set aside.
iii. Consequently, the application filed by the
Petitioner under Section 239 read with Section
115 of the MHC Act, 2017 is allowed.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62699
CRL.P No. 8281 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010386162025
iv. The Petitioner is discharged from the offence
under Section 309 of the IPC in CC No.2422 of
2023.
This Court has been assisted by Ms. Harshada R.B., Law
Clerk, in reviewing this judgment.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61