Uttarakhand High Court
Kamal Deep vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:-07.08.2025
Judgment delivered on:-06.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.946 of 2024
07th August, 2025
Kamal Deep ............Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ............Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, B.H. for the
State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist - Kamal Deep against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2024, passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2023, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Roorkee in Criminal Case No.873 of 2012 (New Criminal Case No.1114 of 2023) was dismissed, affirming his conviction under Section 309 IPC. By the said order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee had convicted the revisionist for attempting to commit suicide and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court along with a fine of ₹500/-, with a default stipulation of five days' simple imprisonment.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 21.02.2011 at about 16:10 hours, Constable - Arpit Kumar Pandey, posted at Kotwali Mangalore, allegedly heard commotion from the upper floor of the building 1 housing the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mangalore, and on reaching there with another Constable - Om Prakash, found the revisionist, a clerk in the Nagar Palika, having poured kerosene upon himself and holding a matchbox with the apparent intent to set himself ablaze. He was apprehended on the spot, and a plastic bottle containing kerosene and a matchbox were recovered. On this basis, Case Crime No.71 of 2011 under Section 309 IPC was registered at Kotwali Mangalore. The medical examination of the revisionist conducted the same day at 16:30 hours revealed no external injury or kerosene poisoning, though the doctor noted the smell of kerosene on his head and upper body. The revisionist was produced before the court the next day and granted bail. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet on 12.10.2011 under Section 309 IPC, cognizance was taken, and charges were framed on 25.06.2013. The prosecution examined five witnesses, all of whom were either police personnel or employees of Nagar Palika Parishad, while the defence of the revisionist was that he had been falsely implicated as he had made complaints against the Chairman and other officials of the Nagar Palika regarding irregularities and was being pressurized to withdraw the same. The trial court, after considering the evidence, convicted the revisionist, and the appellate court subsequently upheld the conviction, leading to the present revision.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated and has been initiated at the behest of certain officials of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mangalore, against whom the revisionist had made written complaints regarding irregularities in office functioning. It is argued 2 that to coerce him to withdraw such complaints, the officials connived with the local police and falsely implicated the revisionist in this case under Section 309 IPC. The learned counsel further submits that the alleged incident, even if accepted at its face value, does not constitute an "attempt" to commit suicide but at best reflects a stage of mere preparation, which is not punishable under law. It is argued that the revisionist was only found standing with a matchbox in his hand and had not lit it or committed any overt act to end his life, hence the essential ingredients of an "attempt" were wholly absent.
4. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the prosecution evidence suffers from serious infirmities and contradictions. He submits that all the prosecution witnesses except for one, are Police personnel who have repeated the same version in a mechanical manner, while the only independent witness
- Shahid Ali, a fellow clerk of the revisionist, did not support the prosecution and categorically stated that no such act was committed by the revisionist in his presence. The medical evidence also completely demolishes the prosecution version since no burn injuries or signs of poisoning were detected on the body of the revisionist, and the mere smell of kerosene cannot substantiate a charge of attempt to commit suicide. Learned counsel submits that the courts below failed to appreciate that mere preparation to commit suicide, without an overt act, cannot bring the case within the purview of Section 309 of IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that the learned courts below ignored the protection available to the revisionist under Section 115 3 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, which creates a statutory presumption that a person who attempts to commit suicide is under severe stress and shall not be tried or punished for such an act unless it is proved otherwise. The provision has, in effect, decriminalized the attempt to commit suicide and mandates that such persons should receive care and rehabilitation rather than prosecution. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the revisionist, therefore, runs contrary to the spirit of the 2017 Act and violates the legislative intent of compassion and rehabilitation. Reliance has been placed on judicial pronouncements, including P. Rathinam v. Union of India reported in (1994) 3 SCC 394, Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab reported in (1996) 2 SCC 648 and Common Cause v. Union of India reported in (2018) 5 SCC 1, whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized upon the evolving jurisprudence toward humanizing the law and treating suicide attempts as a manifestation of distress rather than criminal conduct.
6. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that both the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and passed the impugned orders in a mechanical and perfunctory manner. The conviction, though accompanied by a nominal sentence, has had devastating consequences for the revisionist's career and mental health, as the authorities of the Nagar Palika Parishad have now initiated proceedings to terminate his employment citing his conviction. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that in view of the infirmities in the prosecution case, the absence of requisite mens rea and overt act, and the protection under the Mental Health 4 Care Act, 2017, the impugned judgments and orders of the courts below be set aside and the revisionist be acquitted of all charges.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits the investigation was conducted in a fair and proper manner, and on the basis of credible oral and documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer found direct involvement of the revisionist in the commission of the alleged offence. Consequently, a charge sheet was submitted on 12.10.2011 under Section 309 IPC, on which the learned Trial Court took cognizance on 25.06.2013 and framed charges against the revisionist.
8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that during the course of trial, the prosecution led sufficient and reliable evidence which conclusively established that the revisionist was apprehended at the spot while attempting to commit suicide by pouring kerosene over himself and holding a matchbox. The Trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence and the statements of the witnesses, rightly held the revisionist guilty of the offence under Section 309 IPC and awarded him a sentence of till rising of the court along with a fine of ₹500/-, and in default of payment of fine, five days' simple imprisonment. The appellate court, upon an independent reappraisal of the evidence, found no error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court and accordingly affirmed the conviction and sentence. The learned counsel for the State, therefore, asserts that the judgments of both the courts below are well-reasoned, based on sound legal principles, and do not call for any interference by this Court.
59. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the State that the grounds raised in the present revision petition are largely argumentative and devoid of substance, as both the courts below have already considered all relevant aspects of the case. The learned counsel contends that the conviction of the revisionist is supported by clear, cogent, and credible evidence, and that no legal or factual infirmity has been demonstrated to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the criminal revision, being without merit, deserves to be dismissed.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC for allegedly attempting to commit suicide by pouring kerosene upon him and holding a matchbox. It is evident from the record that no overt act towards self-destruction was committed by the revisionist and that he was apprehended before any such act could take place. The medical examination report does not disclose any external injury, burn marks, or kerosene poisoning; it merely notes the smell of kerosene on the upper body of the revisionist. The only independent witness did not support the prosecution case, and the evidence of the official witnesses also fails to establish that the act had crossed the stage of preparation and entered into the realm of attempt. Thus, the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 309 IPC the existence of an actual attempt to take one's life has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
11. This Court further observes that the trial court as well as the appellate court have proceeded in a routine and mechanical manner without considering the 6 distinction between preparation and attempt, or the surrounding circumstances in which the alleged incident took place. The revisionist has consistently maintained that he had been subjected to harassment at his workplace and was under severe stress due to official pressure arising from his complaints against his superiors. These circumstances add credibility to the defence version and, at the very least, create a reasonable doubt about the existence of the requisite mens rea to constitute an offence under Section 309 IPC. The trial courts have failed to appreciate this material aspect and have thereby committed a manifest error in convicting the revisionist.
12. This Court also cannot lose sight of the benevolent and reformative intent of the legislature embodied in Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, which provides that any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to be under severe stress and shall not be tried or punished under Section 309 IPC. The provision marks a significant shift from the punitive approach of the past to a compassionate understanding of suicide attempts as a manifestation of mental distress. In the present case, there is nothing on record to rebut this statutory presumption of severe stress, and as such, the continuation of prosecution and the consequent conviction of the revisionist are contrary to both the letter and spirit of the 2017 Act. The courts below were duty bound to consider this legal position, but they failed to do so.
13. This Court is also of the view that the offence alleged against the revisionist, even if technically made out, calls for sympathetic consideration. The sentence 7 awarded is nominal, but the stigma of conviction has caused severe prejudice to the revisionist, particularly as it has affected his government employment and mental well-being. The criminal justice system must not add to the suffering of those already under mental distress. In the interest of justice and to serve the humanitarian object underlying the Mental Health Care Act, a sympathetic and reformative approach is warranted in this case. The ends of justice would be better served by setting aside the conviction rather than perpetuating the trauma of criminal stigma for an act which itself stemmed from psychological distress.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that there exist substantial and reasonable grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 309 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, squarely applies in favour of the revisionist and the overall circumstances call for a sympathetic view in the interest of justice.
15. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. The judgments and orders dated 11.07.2023 and 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Roorkee, and the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, respectively, are hereby set aside. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence imposed against the revisionist also stands set aside.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.11.2025 SK 8