Attempt to commit suicide
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with 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.] The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.]
Section 309, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 226 Attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain exercise of lawful power Distant match 57%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of H. P vs Nirmala Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment with imprisonment 'and shall also be liable to fine' for serious offences, both imprisonment and fine are mandatory and imperative. The appellate court's power under Section 386(b)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code to alter the nature or extent of sentence must be exercised in accordance with the statutory scheme of punishment in the IPC and cannot be used to eliminate imprisonment entirely and substitute it with fine alone, even when mitigating circumstances such as the accused being a woman with dependent children are present. For heinous crimes against society, the deterrence theory becomes paramount, and the principle of proportionality requires that punishment be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
On this section: Attempt to commit suicide - cited to show the distinction between offences where punishment is 'imprisonment or fine or both' versus 'imprisonment and fine', demonstrating legislative awareness of such distinctions.
-
Brajendrasingh vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is the exception. Death penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the crime is so heinous and brutal that no other punishment except death would serve the ends of justice. In cases where the accused shows genuine remorse, commits the crime in emotional disturbance without premeditation, has no prior criminal history, and the impact of the loss of his entire family already constitutes grave punishment, the court may exercise discretion to commute death sentence to life imprisonment. The presence of mitigating circumstances must be balanced against aggravating circumstances before determining if a case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category.
On this section: Attempted suicide. Accused was acquitted of this offense by trial court and state did not appeal the acquittal.
-
State of A. P vs V. V. Panduranga Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A cryptic telephonic message received by police about a cognizable offence cannot be treated as a valid First Information Report. The object of a telephonic message is merely to request the police to proceed to the place of occurrence and not to lodge a formal FIR. Only where detailed information is provided on telephone and the officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and proceeds from the police station after recording such information, does any subsequent statement amount to a Section 162 statement of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not an FIR. In evaluating evidence, courts must consider discrepancies between investigation statements and court testimony, and the absence of corroborative investigative measures.
On this section: Charge for alleged attempt to commit suicide by cutting his own throat with a knife
-
Vijay Kumar vs State Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A dying declaration recorded by a competent judicial officer (magistrate) at the instance of a medical expert who has certified the declarant's fitness to make a statement is admissible in evidence and can be relied upon for conviction, notwithstanding minor procedural defects in compliance with procedural guidelines (such as lack of signature or thumb impression), provided the substantive content of the declaration is proved to be truthful through adequate corroborative material evidence including oral testimony of responsible official witnesses and documentary/circumstantial evidence such as seizure memos, medical records, and independent witness accounts. The guidelines for recording dying declarations are meant to ensure genuineness and test veracity but are not binding preconditions to admissibility; trivial defects do not vitiate otherwise reliable dying declarations that form part of a cohesive web of circumstantial evidence.
On this section: Attempt to commit suicide. Initially applied when first information report was registered on August 1, 1980, before the severity of injuries was understood.
-
Hakkim vs State Tr. Dy. Supdt. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple accused enter a premises with preplanned weapons and execute a coordinated attack resulting in death and injuries, the use of multiple weapons is established by: (1) eyewitness testimony of victims present at the scene; (2) the distribution and severity of injuries across multiple parts of the body and across multiple victims; and (3) recovery of all weapons at the crime scene. Forensic testing of only one weapon does not negate the use of multiple weapons. Therefore, Sections 109 and 149 IPC are validly invoked, and all accused are liable for murder under Section 302 IPC even if one person inflicted the fatal wound. Additionally, persons who commit murder while under 18 years of age are entitled to juvenile justice protections including maximum detention of 3 years, and if this period is exceeded, immediate release must be ordered notwithstanding confirmation of conviction.
On this section: Referenced in context of charges framed but ultimately found not proved against some accused. Relates to attempt to culpable homicide.
-
Nikhil Soni v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Santhara/Sallekhana (Jain fast unto death) is held to be suicide/abetment of suicide under IPC 309/306, not protected by Article 25. Article 21 does not include a right to take one's life in this form. DB (Sunil Ambwani CJ) reportable; heard 23.4.2015. MCP markdown flagged a wrong extracted date from pleading examples, but the body is the Santhara judgment (notices 22.9.2006). Later stayed by the Supreme Court — teach the HC holding against that stay. Do not successor-map IPC 309 to BNS 226 (mapping.csv relation=weak; BNS 226 is a different offence).
On this section: Santhara/Sallekhana is treated as attempt to commit suicide under IPC 309 (later stayed by SC).
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… the present litigation has a history and while narrating the same, the assertions made in the Writ Petition and the contentions which have been raised during the course of hearing, to which we shall refer in due course, are to be kept in mind. D.1 P. Rathinam's case – The question of unconstitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code: 14. Presently, it is necessary to travel backwards in time, though not very far. Two individuals, namely, P. Rathinam and Nagbhushan Patnaik, filed two Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution which were decided by a two-Judge Bench in P. Rathinam v. Union of India & …
-
… Now coming to Section 115 of the MHA which reads- > " 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 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, …
-
… Chanda in well. After snatching his son Ramkaran from the lap of Guddi, Kanaram threw him in the well and he himself also jumped into the same. The throwing of Ramkaran caused his death. On basis of the information aforesaid a case was lodged for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 309 Indian Penal Code. After regular investigation a charge sheet was filed before the competent court with the charges of committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 Indian Penal Code by accused Kanaram. The trial court after hearing accused, framed charges against him for causing offences …
Questions about Section 309
What have the courts held on Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code?
State of H. P vs Nirmala Devi (10 Apr 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Attempt to commit suicide - cited to show the distinction between offences where punishment is 'imprisonment or fine or both' versus 'imprisonment and fine', demonstrating legislative awareness of such distinctions. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 309, section 309 IPC, section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 309 in bns and ipc 309 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of H. P vs Nirmala Devi (10 Apr 2017).
What should I read with Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 226 (Attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain exercise of lawful power), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called attempt to suicide, and cited as IPC 309, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.