Abetment of suicide
Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with abetment of suicide. 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 fine. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
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 fine.
Section 108, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 306 Abetment of suicide Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abetment of suicide. | Imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Cognizable. | Non-bailable. | Court of Session. |
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.
-
Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC are: (1) the existence of a live link or nexus between the abetment and the suicide; (2) the active role of instigation or aiding on the part of the accused; (3) the intention to aid or instigate the commission of suicide; (4) the absence of any severing of these constituents. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide falls short of the offense of abetment. Contiguity, continuity, culpability, and complicity of indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Mere domestic discord, absence of support, or property disputes, without active sustained incitement with direct causative content, cannot sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused's conduct was the direct, proximate, and compelling cause for the victim's suicide, and if the victim appears hypersensitive to ordinary domestic discord not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the accused cannot be held guilty. The court must be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances to determine whether cruelty meted out to the victim in fact induced the suicide, and the absence of complaints to police, civil suits, or evidence of specific threats substantially weakens the prosecution's case.
On this section: The primary offense charged. The court clarified that Section 306 criminalizes sustained incitement for suicide and requires a live link and nexus between abetment and the suicide act. Mere remoteness of acts or absence of intention to aid or instigate would negate liability.
-
R. Shashirekha vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an offence under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) to be constituted, there must be a proximate and positive act of instigation by the accused with close temporal proximity to the commission of suicide by the victim, creating a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. A significant time gap between the alleged instigation and the suicide, combined with the absence of any direct causal connection, is sufficient to break the nexus and preclude the constitution of the offence. However, when the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, it must examine the investigation material and provide reasoned findings as to why the material does not constitute the alleged offence, rather than making casual observations without substantive analysis.
On this section: Abetment to suicide - requires proximate and positive act of instigation with close temporal proximity to the act of suicide. Court held that mere allegations of cheating and fraud without a clear nexus to the suicide do not constitute abetment.
-
Mahendra Awase vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To attract the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the accused must have abetted the commission of suicide through specific instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid as defined in Section 107 IPC. Instigation requires that the accused, by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. Mere words uttered in anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, or aggressive conduct in performing one's duty (such as loan recovery), cannot constitute instigation to commit suicide. The court must apply a realistic approach, keeping the context and day-to-day realities of life in mind, and should not treat hyperboles or heated exchanges as instigation without clear evidence of intent to push the deceased into a position where suicide was the only option.
On this section: Abetment of suicide - the core provision under which the appellant was charged. The Court held that to attract this section, there must be specific abetment with intent to bring about suicide, not merely harassment or aggressive loan recovery.
-
Ram Pyarey vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Station House Officer
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the court cannot invoke the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act without first establishing cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment. The presumptive language in Section 113A ('may presume') is permissive, not mandatory, and requires a foundation of direct evidence of aiding, instigating, or encouraging the suicide. The absence of such cogent evidence renders the presumption inapplicable, and the accused must be acquitted.
On this section: Abetment of suicide - The appellant was convicted under this section for allegedly abetting the suicide of his sister-in-law. The Supreme Court found no cogent evidence to support this conviction.
-
M. Vijayakumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish: (1) that the victim committed suicide, (2) that the accused abetted the commission of suicide through a positive act of instigation or aiding, (3) that the accused possessed clear mens rea (guilty mind) with the intention to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide, and (4) that there was an active or direct act by the accused that led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option. In the absence of evidence establishing these elements, particularly the mens rea and active act, conviction cannot be sustained. Furthermore, Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused unless the prosecution has first established a prima facie case.
On this section: Abetment of suicide - the primary offence charged. The Court analyzed the essential ingredients: victim's suicide, accused's abetment, and compliance with Section 107 IPC requirements.
-
Satish Shetty vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once the prosecution succeeds in establishing the component of cruelty leading to conviction under Section 498-A IPC, in a rare case only can the court refuse to invoke the presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Evidence Act if other requirements of that section are satisfied. The presumption is discretionary but should be invoked in appropriate cases where cruelty is established, suicide occurs within seven years of marriage, and the accused fails to rebut the presumption. Courts must apply sensitivity in cases involving vulnerable women and dowry harassment, and delay in lodging FIR should not be treated as fatal when the victim's closest relation is a poor, helpless person dealing with tragedy.
On this section: Defines abetment of suicide. The Court applied this section to convict the appellant for abetting the suicide of his wife through cruelty and harassment.
-
Satish Shetty vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court's judgment of acquittal is shown to be perverse through gross errors in approach and appreciation of evidence, ignoring glaring facts and credible testimonies, an appellate court is justified in interfering with such acquittal and reversing it based on the merits of the case. Specifically, in cases of cruelty leading to suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage, once the cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is established through credible evidence, the Court may exercise its discretion to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, even without a specific charge under that section, where the relevant and material facts are already part of the charges framed under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The conviction should be upheld when the presumption is not rebutted by credible evidence and the trial court's acquittal judgment was patently erroneous in ignoring available evidence.
On this section: Abetment of suicide - if any person commits suicide, whoever abets it shall be punished with imprisonment up to ten years and fine. Court convicted appellant under this section based on presumption under Section 113-A and evidence of cruelty establishing abetment.
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Abetment of suicide. Alone charged against the husband Abhimanyu Singh by police as he may have abetted wife's suicide.
-
Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution must prove beyond preponderance of evidence that: (i) the death of a woman occurred in abnormal circumstances caused by burns or bodily injury, (ii) within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative connected with a demand for dowry, with the cruelty/harassment maintaining a live link or causal connection to the death (not being stale or aberration of past). Only after prosecution establishes these three core elements does the burden shift to the husband or relative to disprove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The word 'shown' in Section 304B must be interpreted as 'prove' (using preponderance standard), and the deeming provision operates after such proof, not before. Until prosecution discharges this foundational burden, the accused's presumption of innocence is not displaced, and the burden of proof does not shift to the defense.
On this section: Abetment to suicide. Court emphasized that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage due to cruelty connected with dowry demands, Section 306 should be charged alongside Section 304B.
-
Srikant vs State of Mp
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that a woman died within seven years of marriage due to burns or bodily injury, and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for dowry demand soon before her death (even if not immediately before death), the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act shall be invoked against the accused. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove that the death was accidental and not caused by the harassment. An accused cannot escape liability by merely pointing to dying declarations that contain inconsistent versions, especially when medical evidence (postmortem examination) contradicts the accidental narrative. The essential requirement of 'soon before' is satisfied through a proximity test that considers the circumstances of the case, not by reference to any fixed period; a harassment 5-6 months before death is sufficiently proximate when it is continuous and unabated. When death is caused by burns, the condition of 'occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances' is automatically fulfilled without requiring separate proof.
On this section: Abetment of suicide: Initially registered by police but charges not pressed in final conviction; prosecution focused on dowry death instead.
-
Patel Maheshbhai Ranchobhai vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court abandons its prime duty to appreciate evidence for search of truth and disposes of a criminal case hastily without properly examining all available evidence, an appellate court can reverse the acquittal and convict the accused based on a proper re-appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly when the dying declaration of the victim is corroborated by circumstances and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The courts have a constitutional duty to ensure justice and cannot remain passive when the prosecuting agency fails to present complete evidence or when there is evidence of collusion between the prosecution and the trial court. Both the prosecutor and the trial court have a duty to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record to prevent miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Abetment to suicide. Applied to convict all three appellants for abetting the deceased's suicide through harassment and cruelty.
-
Bhupendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC does not require a chemical examination report of viscera proving the specific poison consumed; proof of unnatural death of a woman within 7 years of marriage following cruelty or harassment for dowry, combined with the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, is sufficient for conviction. Further, Sections 304-B and 306 IPC are not mutually exclusive; a conviction under Section 304-B necessarily attracts Section 306, though the converse is not true. Suicide is a recognized mode of death falling within Section 304-B when preceded by dowry-related cruelty.
On this section: Abetment of Suicide. Applied to punish those who abet a woman's suicide through cruelty and harassment. Court held that Section 306 is broader than Section 304-B and both can apply simultaneously when dowry-related suicide occurs.
-
Atmaram vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To convict a husband or relative of a woman under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, or to draw a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, there must be evidence establishing that such husband or relative committed cruelty of the nature described in clauses (a) or (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Mere misbehavior, ordinary domestic discord, or unmet expectations within domestic life do not constitute legally cognizable cruelty. The court must carefully assess whether the conduct alleged was of such a nature as objectively and reasonably likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, not merely that it affected a hypersensitive victim. Where the evidence fails to establish such cruelty with reasonable certainty, conviction cannot rest on presumption alone, and must be set aside.
On this section: Abetment of suicide - applied to determine if appellant's conduct amounted to active abetment of Purnabai's suicide; court found no sufficient evidence of conduct specifically directed at abetting suicide
-
Falak Kamali vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court held that while gender and youth/age of the accused are relevant considerations in bail applications, they are not conclusive or determinative. In cases involving serious charges such as abetment to suicide, courts must balance the vulnerability of the accused against the gravity and nature of the allegations. Where anticipatory bail is not granted, the court may permit surrender and regular bail application before the lower court, as the legal considerations and discretionary exercise for regular bail differ from those for anticipatory bail. The status of a co-accused is also a relevant consideration in exercising discretionary bail jurisdiction.
On this section: Abetment of suicide - the substantive criminal charge against the petitioners. The Court noted that the charge relates to abetting suicide by harassment.
-
Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In dowry death cases under Section 304-B IPC, once the prosecution establishes by reliable and acceptable evidence that: (i) death of woman occurred by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than normal circumstances; (ii) within seven years of marriage; (iii) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before death by husband or his relatives; and (iv) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with dowry demand, such death shall be called dowry death and the husband or relatives shall be deemed to have caused the death. The phrase 'soon before her death' requires proximate temporal link between the cruelty/harassment and death, with no definite period prescribed but normally implying the interval should not be much. Evidence from family members is admissible and credible in matrimonial death cases despite absence of outsider witnesses. Once Section 304-B ingredients are established, a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment cannot be reduced on grounds of age, family circumstances or other considerations.
On this section: Abetment of suicide. While charges were initially framed under this section, conviction was ultimately not pursued on this count as the more specific Section 304-B applied.
-
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing of charges under criminal law, when a court evaluates material on record, if the facts taken at their face value disclose the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offense, and if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offense, the charge should be framed even if the probative value of the evidence cannot be fully assessed at this stage. For the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC, instigation can be inferred where the accused by his acts, omissions, or continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, provided the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide. The mere fact that words were uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment without mens rea does not constitute instigation, but a sustained course of conduct involving harassment, threats, and mental torture that leaves the deceased with no alternative can constitute instigation even in the absence of explicit words to that effect.
On this section: Provision on abetment of suicide; establishes that whoever abets the commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term extending to ten years and liable to fine
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.
-
… Alleging that the aforesaid acts of P.P. Divya forced the deceased to commit suicide, she was arrayed as the accused in the case by substituting Section 194 of BNSS with Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the investigation was being continued on that basis. While so, on 25.10.2024, -: 4 :- having regard to the nature of the case, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Sri.Ajit Kumar, IPS, District Police Chief was constituted …
Questions about Section 108
What have the courts held on Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab (02 Dec 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 306, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: The primary offense charged. The court clarified that Section 306 criminalizes sustained incitement for suicide and requires a live link and nexus between abetment and the suicide act. Mere remoteness of acts or absence of intention to aid or instigate would negate liability. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
Is Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Non-bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Court of Session.
How do I find court cases under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
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: BNS 108, section 108 BNS, section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 108 in ipc and bns 108 3 5 in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab (02 Dec 2016).
What should I read with Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 306 (Abetment of suicide), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 108, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 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. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.