Abetment of Suicide under IPC and BNS Your Guide to Legal Knowledge and Insights

Abetment of Suicide under IPC and BNS

Suicide is a complex act, and when someone is driven to take such a step due to another person’s instigation or influence, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides legal recourse through the offense of abetment of suicide. The legal provisions around abetment of suicide have evolved through various judicial interpretations and observations that have shaped the application of these laws in India.

In this article, we will explore the legal definition of abetment of suicide under the IPC and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the key judicial precedents, and the approach of courts in dealing with cases of workplace harassment and suicide. This will provide law students with an in-depth understanding of how the judiciary has interpreted and applied the law in abetment of suicide cases over the years.

Definition of Abetment under IPC and BNS

Section 107 of IPC (Indian Penal Code)

Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who,

First- instigates any person to do that thing or,
Secondly- engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or,
Thirdly- intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Note: Therefore, Abetment, as per Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, refers to the act of deliberately encouraging someone to do something. For example, X would be liable for abetment if person X instigated or encouraged Y to kill Z

Section 45 of BNS defines Abetment

It provides that a person abets the doing of a thing who:

Instigates any person to do a thing;
Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

This definition of abetment extends to various offenses, including abetment of suicide, which is further covered under Section 306 IPC.

Section 306 of IPC

Section 306 states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to a fine. This provision holds individuals criminally responsible if their acts or conduct directly contribute to the victim's decision to end their life.

Section 108 of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)

The recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaces the IPC, retains the core definitions of abetment. Section 45 of the BNS mirrors Section 107 of the IPC, and Section 108 BNS aligns with Section 306 IPC, defining the punishment for abetment of suicide. The introduction of the BNS reflects continuity with the IPC while modernizing certain aspects of legal provisions.

Judicial Precedents on Abetment of Suicide

Over the years, courts have set a high threshold for establishing guilt in abetment of suicide cases. A crucial factor in deciding these cases is whether there was clear intent to provoke or push the person to commit suicide. Below are some important cases and judicial observations:

M Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (2011)

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court set a high bar for proving abetment under Section 306 IPC. The court held that abetment involves an active or direct role by the accused in driving the deceased to a point where they see no other option but to end their life. Mere harassment, financial stress, or professional pressure does not amount to abetment unless the conduct of the accused is such that it compels the victim to commit suicide.
The court observed, that “A more active role or an overt act, showing an intention to provoke or drive a person to suicide, is required to establish the offense under Section 306 IPC.”

Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the act of abetment must be a continuous course of conduct that creates a situation where the deceased sees no other option than suicide.
The court held, that “There must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide… A mere allegation of harassment or frustration at work cannot suffice unless there is evidence of intent.”
This case reinforced the view that the burden of proof lies in demonstrating a clear causal link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide.

Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Case (2024)

A recent judgment from October 2023 reflects the courts' cautious approach in cases involving workplace-related suicides. In this case, Rajeev Jain, a salesman, died by suicide after alleged harassment by senior officers who pressured him to opt for a voluntary retirement scheme (VRS). The Supreme Court quashed the case against the accused officers, citing the lack of direct intent to provoke suicide.
The court stated: “In cases of official capacity, courts must avoid unnecessary prosecutions unless there is substantial evidence showing that the accused intended to cause suicide.”
This judgment draws a distinction between sentimental or personal ties, where a heated argument might lead to impulsive decisions, and official or professional relationships, where rules, policies, and the professional setting must be considered.

Key Observations of Courts on Abetment of Suicide

Intent and Direct Act: Courts have repeatedly stressed that the mere act of causing emotional or mental distress, without intent to drive the victim to suicide, is insufficient for a conviction. A direct or active act with the clear intention to push the victim to suicide is essential.
Sentimental vs. Official Relationships: As seen in recent judgments, the courts have differentiated between cases involving close personal relationships and those involving professional or official relationships. In personal relationships, a lower threshold might apply since emotional exchanges may have a more immediate impact on the victim’s mental state.
Workplace Harassment Cases: In cases where the alleged abetment is related to workplace harassment, courts have taken a conservative approach. They require strong evidence showing that the harassment was severe enough to leave the victim with no other option but suicide. Mere professional disputes or disagreements do not automatically amount to abetment.
Psychological Imbalance: Courts have acknowledged that a person’s mental state and vulnerability play a significant role in assessing abetment. The Karnataka High Court, in a case involving an LGBT employee who was harassed for their sexual orientation, observed that “tarnishing or destroying the self-esteem of a hypersensitive person” could amount to abetment.

Challenges in Proving Abetment of Suicide

One of the main challenges in proving abetment is establishing a causal link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. Several factors contribute to a person’s decision to take their own life, including personal, psychological, and situational aspects. As a result, the judiciary often takes a cautious approach in determining criminal liability under Section 306 IPC or Section 108 BNS.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data also show that conviction rates in abetment of suicide cases remain relatively low. In 2022, the conviction rate was only 17.5%, reflecting the complexity of proving intent and causation in such cases.

Conclusion

The law on abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC (and its counterpart in BNS) is clear in theory, but its application in real-world cases requires a nuanced understanding of human psychology, intent, and causation. Through judicial precedents, courts have emphasized that the burden of proof lies heavily on establishing a direct, intentional act that led the victim to suicide.

For law students, understanding this area of law requires not just knowledge of statutory provisions, but also familiarity with the evolving interpretations provided by courts. Given the complexities involved, each case is unique and must be judged on its individual merits, with intent being the central issue.