The draft of the Indian Penal Code was submitted by the First Law Commission Report, which was chaired by Lord McCauley. The basis of Indian law is said to be the Digest of the Criminal Law - Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. Most of the offences against the Human Body are included under the title "Offences against the person, the conjugal and parental rights, and the reputation of individuals", within this draft.
Offences against the Human Body classify crimes involving some form of assault or personal violence or physical injury, i.e. offences affecting the life, liberty or safety of the physical person of an individual.
Offences against Human Body have been classified as a separate class of offences basically because of the fact that any harm done against the human body is an invasion of the Right to Bodily Integrity of any individual which is just a narrow part of the fundamental right to privacy which is one of the basic rights of any civilized society [1] .
However, the Penal Code needs to evolve with the society. At present, there are many amendments that are proposed in the Penal Code, as regards introducing new offences, enhancing or reducing punishments, as well as changing the existing offences to suit the needs of the evolving society.
Our Review
This report contains a long running review of the existing law, and much needed changes which have been reiterated time and again in various Law Commission Reports, by eminent jurists, and by the courts all around the world, but have been failed to be included in the Code.
Suggested Amendments:
A. Honour Killing
Honour killing (also called customary killing) is the murder of a (female) family or clan member by one or more fellow (mostly male) family members, where the murderers (and potentially the wider community) believe the victim to have brought dishonour upon the family, clan, or community. These killings result from the perception that defence of honour justifies killing a person whose behaviour dishonours their clan or family [2] .
Amendments are needed to be made in the Indian Penal Code to curb these barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons who deserve harsh punishment [3] . The amendments proposed are: [4]
Fifth Clause to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, making ‘Honour Killing’ a “distinct offence”.
Such killings should now bring charges of murder (Section 302)
B. Section 302-Punishment for Murder (Abolition of Death Sentence)
In India, the issue of the abolition of capital punishment was raised for the first time in the Legislative Assembly in 1931, wherein it was sought to be introduced as a Bill to abolish death penalty in Bihar, but it was defeated. [5]
Bachhan Singh V. State of Punjab [6] , minority opinion of P.N Bhagwati “who says that section 302 of IPC in so far as it provides for imposition of death penalty as an alternative to life sentence is Ultra Virus and Void as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. Since it does not provide any legislative guidelines as to when life should be permitted be extinguished by imposition of death sentence.”
Developing society, progressive approach, more reformatory punishments and not retributive punishments demand that death penalty must be abolished. [7]
Some consideration regarding the motive should also be made in the section for imposing penalty, because usually murder is done for personal provocative causes, however, if murder is done during dacoity or robbery, they are done purely due to causes which are motivated by such harms as are caused to the society. A reasonable differentiation should be thus, be made between the two. [8]
C. Section 303 - Punishment for murder by life-convict
It is submitted that the above section should be repealed, in the light of the Mithu Case [9] , wherein it was struck down as unconstitutional. Also it cannot be justified on the basis of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
D. Section 304B - Dowry Death
A new explanation is proposed to be introduced in Section 304-B. The phrase “soon before death” is a relative term which has to be examined on facts and circumstances of each case. This expression “soon before death” is pregnant with the idea of proximity. It is not synonymous with the term “immediately before”. [10] Thus, we propose to introduce a new Explanation 2 in Section 304-B to include all these aspects in the statutory law and not merely judge made law, so that it becomes more authoritative.
There have also been made many recommendations by the National Commission for Women: [11]
The words ‘soon before her death’ occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 304B IPC (Dowry Death) may be replaced by the words ‘anytime before her death’.
Any death occurring in the circumstances mentioned in the abovementioned sub-section even after 7 years of marriage maybe considered as dowry death.
The minimum punishment laid down in the sub-section (2) of Section 304B IPC should be raised from 7 years to 10 years and death may be prescribed as the maximum penalty alternate to the existing penalty of imprisonment for life as dowry death is an aggravated form or murder itself.
E. Section 307 - Attempts by life convicts
In view of the above arguments, it is further proposed that Sec. 307 Part II – Attempt to murder by life convicts, must also be removed from the purview of Indian Penal Code since this as well is discriminatory on grounds of Art. 14 – Right to Equality of our Constitution.
F. Euthanasia
“’Euthanasia’ is the act of killing someone painlessly, especially for relieving suffering of a person from incurable illness. It is also called ‘mercy-killing’.” [12]
It is proposed, that euthanasia as an offence be removed from the ambit of suicide, “as self-killing is conceptually different from abetting others to kill themselves. They stand on different footing, because in one case a person takes his own life, and in the other a third person is abetted to take his life.” [13] Also, it cannot be covered under the ambit of Culpable Homicide as there is the presence of “Informed Consent”, “Knowledge” and “Best Interests” of the consenting person. There has been unanimity among courts around the world regarding these legal principles. [14]
It may be justified on the view that, existence in Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) is not a benefit to the patient of a terminal illness being unrelated to the principle of 'sanctity of life' or the ‘right to live with dignity'. The ‘Right to Life' including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right upto the end of natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life upto the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. Thus, euthanasia under PVS must be permitted as right to refuse treatment must be permissible in such cases. [15] .
Hence, it is proposed to include a new Section 309-A in the IPC reading “No person shall be guilty of murder or other form of homicide or attempt to commit such offence if the life of the person is extinguished by way of euthanasia.” [16]
EG1hao
