Abetment of suicide
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 306, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 108 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 5
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Crpc 1973 s. 484 Repeal and savings
- Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act s. 3 Prevention and eradication of inhuman evil practices and black magic
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code-2006 s. 114 Other conditions regarding devolution
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
-
Bhupendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh
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.
-
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State
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
-
Undavali Narayana Rao vs State of A. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A husband or family member's continuous state of harassment and cruelty, involving demands for dowry and property in violation of settlement agreements, combined with threats and forced separation of the wife, constitutes 'cruelty' under Section 498A IPC when the totality of circumstances, including hurried disposal of the body and property settlement to suppress prosecution, supports the inference that such cruelty drove the woman to commit suicide. The provision does not require proof of intent to cause death (which would be necessary under Section 306 IPC) but only willful conduct that is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to suicide. A prior reconciliation agreement does not provide defense against charges of renewed harassment in violation of that agreement.
On this section: Abetment of suicide. The Court distinguished this section from Section 498A, noting that Section 306 requires proof of intention to abet suicide (mental element), whereas Section 498A focuses on the willful conduct and its natural consequences on a reasonable person. The Court applied this distinction to explain why cruelty under Section 498A could be established even without proving direct abetment under Section 306.
-
Kuldeep Kaur vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the trial and appellate courts have acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC (dowry harassment and dowry death), based on the finding that there was no demand of dowry or cruelty committed in connection with dowry, a conviction under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) cannot be sustained against the same accused based on the same set of facts without direct, specific, and cogent evidence establishing a reasonable nexus between the alleged cruelty by the accused and the suicide. Mere presumptions, general allegations, or inferences drawn from isolated diary entries cannot substitute for concrete evidence demonstrating that the specific actions of the accused directly led to the suicide.
On this section: Primary charge against the appellant; defines abetment of suicide and requires proof of direct nexus between alleged cruelty and suicide. Court held that evidence on record did not establish this nexus.
-
Rakhal Debnath vs State of West Bengl
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage after being subjected to cruelty in the form of dowry demands, jewelry pledging, and evidence of instigation by the husband through sustained harassment and illicit relationship with another woman, the court may presume that the husband abetted the suicide under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 306 IPC. Such presumption is not irrebuttable, but when supported by consistent ocular evidence from multiple witnesses regarding the deceased's complaints and the circumstances demonstrating a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and suicide, the conviction stands. The postmortem medical evidence need not conclusively determine suicide as the cause of death; circumstantial evidence including physical findings at the scene (kerosene, burned materials), pattern of conduct by the husband, and the temporal proximity between harassment and death sufficiently establish guilt.
On this section: Abetment of suicide - Court held that constant instigation by husband regarding money demand and illicit relationship constitutes abetment even without direct proof of specific intent to cause suicide
-
Dalbir Singh vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with one offense (e.g., Section 302 IPC) and the evidence establishes a different offense (e.g., Section 306 IPC) for which no formal charge was framed, conviction under the latter offense is permissible under Section 464 Criminal Procedure Code if: (1) the accused had adequate notice of the allegations constituting that offense through cross-examination of witnesses and his examination under Section 313; (2) the main facts sought to be established were explained to him clearly; (3) he was given a fair and full opportunity to defend himself against those allegations; and (4) no substantial prejudice was caused to the accused. The determination of prejudice must employ a broad vision focusing on substance rather than technicalities, with the ultimate inquiry being whether the accused received a fair trial.
On this section: Abetment of suicide; the core provision examined in this case regarding whether the accused's harassment and cruelty compelled the wife to commit suicide, ultimately leading to the conviction under this section.
-
Satish Shetty vs State of Karnataka
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.
-
Falak Kamali vs State of Madhya Pradesh
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.
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
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
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.
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.
-
… JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE For Petitioner(s) Mr. J.S. Attri, Sr.Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. Ms. Priyanka Bharihoke, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Himinder Lal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The accused, petitioner herein, has been convicted under Section 306 IPC and section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to five years and two years respectively. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already undergone thirteen months of imprisonment. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on …
-
… 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.PC"), the High Court quashed the order dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case No.1478 of 2012, summoning the respondent No. 2 herein in the appeal to face the trial for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC"). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1–State of Uttar Pradesh and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. It is a matter where, initially, the complainant approached the …
-
… By the said judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein challenging the judgment dated 27.07.2000 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 92 of 1998 convicting the appellant in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306, 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ['IPC'](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/)) is confirmed. 4. In brief, the prosecution case is that the marriage of Appellant No. 1 was solemnized with Tahera (hereinafter referred to as the 'Deceased') on 27.04.1997 and after …
Questions about Section 306
What have the courts held on Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code?
Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab (02 Dec 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 306, section 306 IPC, section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 306 punishment and ipc 306 in bns. 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 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 108 (Abetment of suicide), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 306, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.