BALAMANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a person be prosecuted for the offence under Section 309 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that he has undertaken an indefinite fast. This is the question to be decided in this case. Petitioner, the accused in C.C.512/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Wadakkanchery taken cognizance for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code was released on bail. When she failed to appear, a non bailable warrant was issued. When she appeared subsequently, she was remanded to judicial custody. She was taken to Central Prison, -Viyyur. It was contended that she was illegally detained and that too without considering her representation that she could not appear as her sister is being treated in Medical College Hospital in serious condition. As she was remanded, she had undergone an indefinite fast stating that unless her grievance is met, she will not take food. The Superintendent of Central Prison furnished Annexure-I report before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkanchery narrating the facts for taking appropriate action. Learned Magistrate numbered the report as M.P.3184/2006. After recording the sworn statement of the Superintendent, he took cognizance of the offence under Section 309 of Indian Penal Code. It is challenged in this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the order is illegal and Section 309 of Indian Penal Code is not at all attracted.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramamoorthy alias Vannia Adikalar v. State, 1992 CrLJ 2074submitted that Petitioner has only undergone a fast till her demands are met and she has not threatened to commit suicide and therefore, an offence under Section 309 is not at all attracted.