Abetment of Suicide under Section 108 BNS: Ingredients, Proof Standards and Evidentiary Value of a Suicide Note

Introduction: From Section 306 IPC to Section 108 BNS

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) came into force on 1 July 2024, and Section 108 BNS substantially carries forward the offence of abetment of suicide formerly contained in Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Supreme Court has expressly described Section 108 read with Section 45 BNS and Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC as in pari materia. Accordingly, the settled jurisprudence under Sections 306 and 107 IPC continues to guide the interpretation of Section 108 BNS, including the requirements of instigation, mens rea and a legally sufficient connection between the accused’s conduct and the suicide.[1]

Statutory Framework

Section 108 BNS

Section 108 provides that if a person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of that suicide may be punished with imprisonment of either description for up to ten years and fine. Under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the offence is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a Court of Session.[1][2]

Section 108 does not create liability merely because the deceased blamed, named or felt distressed by another person. The prosecution must additionally establish “abetment” within Section 45 BNS.[1][3]

Section 45 BNS

Section 45 recognises three legally distinct forms of abetment:

• Instigation: provoking, goading, urging, inciting or encouraging another person to do the act.
• Conspiracy: engaging with one or more persons in a conspiracy for the act, followed by an act or illegal omission in pursuance of that conspiracy.
• Intentional aid: intentionally facilitating the act through an act or illegal omission.[4]

Accordingly, Section 108 ordinarily requires proof of: (i) a death by suicide; (ii) conduct falling within one of the three branches of Section 45; (iii) the requisite mens rea; and (iv) a legally sufficient connection between that conduct and the suicide.[1][3]

Section 107 BNS

Section 107 BNS is a separate aggravated provision. It applies where a child, person of unsound mind, delirious person or intoxicated person commits suicide, and permits punishment extending to death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to ten years and fine. It should not be confused with the general offence under Section 108.[1]

Meaning of Instigation under Section 108 BNS

The leading definition of instigation in abetment of suicide comes from Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618. The Supreme Court explained that instigation means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act. Express words directing suicide are not essential, but the surrounding circumstances must reasonably indicate an intention to incite the act. A stray statement made in anger or emotion, without an intention that its consequence should follow, does not ordinarily amount to instigation under Section 108 BNS.[5]

The inquiry is therefore based on the overall conduct and circumstances, not merely on the words used. A continued course of conduct may amount to instigation to suicide where the accused deliberately creates circumstances that leave the deceased with no realistic alternative but suicide. Conversely, abusive language, reprimand, pressure, insult, a commercial dispute or even harassment does not automatically satisfy the legal requirements for abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS.[5][3]

Mens Rea in Abetment of Suicide

Mens rea is not inferred merely from the deceased’s subjective belief that another person was responsible. The court must examine the accused’s intention and purpose as disclosed by conscious acts, words, omissions and surrounding circumstances. Even severe harassment is not, without more, abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS, unless the material permits an inference of conscious and deliberate conduct intended to drive or incite the deceased to suicide.[6]

In Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76; (2025) 4 SCC 801, the Supreme Court held that demands for repayment of a loan and heated exchanges did not disclose the intention or active instigation required for Section 306 IPC abetment of suicide. It discharged the accused and cautioned investigating agencies and trial courts against mechanically invoking the provision merely because a distressed family seeks accountability after a suicide.[7][8]

Similarly, in Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 168, the Court quashed the proceedings despite an allegation that the accused had told the deceased, in substance, why she did not die. The Court held that a heat-of-the-moment utterance, without the necessary mens rea and conduct capable of leaving the deceased with no alternative, did not establish abetment.[9]

Proximity and the Live Link

Proximity is important because criminal liability requires a live and legally discernible connection between the accused’s conduct and the suicide. There is no universal mathematical limit measured in hours or days; the whole course of conduct, its continuity, gravity and any intervening circumstances must be examined.

In Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2024) 1 SCC 417, the alleged assault and abuse occurred more than two weeks before the suicide, with no subsequent contact or proximate act. Taking both the complaint and suicide note at face value, the Supreme Court held that the alleged conduct did not amount to instigation and quashed the proceedings.[10]

In contrast, Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, involved persistent public humiliation of a young woman and a fresh incident immediately before her suicide. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction after evaluating the continuous course of conduct, the accused’s active role, the social setting and the close temporal connection.

The two lines are reconcilable: an isolated or stale incident ordinarily weakens causation, whereas sustained targeted conduct culminating in a proximate trigger may satisfy the requirement. Proximity is therefore a contextual evidentiary test, not a rigid rule of limitation.

Suicide Notes: Relevance and Limits

Admissibility

A suicide note may be relevant under Section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), corresponding to Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The provision covers a written or oral statement concerning the cause of the maker’s death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death whenever that person’s cause of death is in question. The maker need not have written it under an expectation of imminent death.[11]

Admissibility, however, does not establish every ingredient of Section 108. A note may reliably prove the deceased’s state of mind or identify surrounding events yet still fail to show that the named person instigated, conspired in or intentionally aided the suicide.[10][3]

No Mandatory Corroboration Rule

There is no absolute rule that every suicide note or dying declaration must be independently corroborated. If the court is satisfied that the declaration is authentic, voluntary, truthful, coherent and free from tutoring or prompting, it may be acted upon without corroboration. If it is suspicious, infirm or inconsistent with reliable evidence, corroboration becomes necessary as a rule of prudence.[12]

Thus, two separate questions must not be conflated:

1. Is the note genuine and reliable?
2. Do its contents, read with the surrounding evidence, prove abetment under Section 45?

A reliable note that merely states “X is responsible for my death” does not automatically answer the second question.[3]

Merely Naming the Accused

In Patel Joshnaben Pravinkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2026 INSC 886, the Supreme Court considered an FIR and suicide note blaming the deceased husband’s in-laws after his wife left the matrimonial home and instituted proceedings. The Court held that merely assigning blame in a suicide note is insufficient; the note and surrounding facts must disclose instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. Recourse to lawful proceedings, by itself, does not constitute instigation, and the Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.[3]

The Court further stressed that the prima facie inquiry cannot stop at the words of the note. The court must consider whether the accused’s conduct, viewed in its ordinary setting, was of a character capable of driving an ordinarily situated person—not merely an unusually sensitive person—to suicide.[3]

Authenticity and Forensic Examination

A suicide note must be proved like any other documentary or electronic evidence. Relevant considerations include:

• recovery and seizure of the original;
• the exact place, time and circumstances of recovery;
• an unbroken chain of custody;
• proof of handwriting or signature through admission, a person acquainted with the handwriting, expert comparison, or lawful judicial comparison;
• examination for additions, overwriting, alteration or fabrication;
• consistency with admitted writings and contemporaneous communications;
• for electronic notes, messages, emails or recordings, preservation of the original device, metadata, extraction process and statutory proof requirements.[13][14]

In Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 990, the Supreme Court treated delayed disclosure, uncertainty concerning recovery, absence of handwriting verification and the appearance of material allegations for the first time in the note as factors casting a cloud on its reliability. It upheld quashing because neither the contemporaneous record nor the questioned note disclosed the required intentional and proximate abetment.[6]

Harassment Is Not Synonymous with Abetment

Harassment may be morally reprehensible or independently punishable without amounting to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The distinction lies in the presence of mens rea, intentional incitement, active instigation, intentional aid or facilitation, or a course of conduct deliberately calculated to push the victim toward suicide.[5]

Courts ordinarily examine:

• the exact words and acts attributed to each accused;
• frequency, continuity and seriousness of the conduct;
• the relationship and relative position of the parties;
• the accused’s knowledge of any special vulnerability;
• whether the conduct was lawful, unlawful, retaliatory or coercive;
• temporal proximity and intervening events;
• alternative causes apparent from the record;
• whether the accused intended merely to demand compliance, express anger or pursue a remedy, or intended to provoke suicide.[3]

The “hypersensitivity” principle is not an automatic defence. Ude Singh confirms that sustained conduct deliberately destroying the victim’s dignity and self-respect may amount to abetment, particularly when it culminates in a proximate incident. Each case requires a careful evaluation of the accused’s conduct as well as the victim’s circumstances.

Matrimonial Suicide and Presumptions

Section 117 BSA, corresponding to Section 113A of the Evidence Act, permits—but does not compel—the court to presume abetment where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and it is shown that her husband or his relative subjected her to cruelty as defined in Section 86 BNS. The court must still consider all other circumstances.[15]

This is a discretionary and rebuttable presumption. Foundational facts—suicide within seven years of marriage and legally proved cruelty by the husband or relative—must first be established. The existence of a suicide note does not dispense with those requirements.[15]

Section 108 must also be distinguished from Section 80 BNS concerning dowry death and Sections 85–86 BNS concerning cruelty by a husband or his relatives. Depending on the facts, those provisions may operate independently or alongside Section 108, but each offence retains its own ingredients and proof requirements.[1]

Procedural Standards

Investigation

Because Section 108 BNS is cognizable, the police may investigate upon receiving information disclosing the offence. But an investigation should not proceed on the mechanical equation that suicide plus accusation equals abetment of suicide. It should test the statutory ingredients and objectively investigate both incriminating and exculpatory circumstances.[2][9]

A sound investigation should secure:

• the original note and contemporaneous recovery documents;
• admitted handwriting and forensic comparison where authorship is disputed;
• phones, computers, cloud records, chats, call records and audio/video material;
• witness accounts concerning the conduct and mental condition of the deceased;
• the chronology of interactions and any proximate trigger;
• medical, inquest and post-mortem evidence establishing suicide;
• evidence of alternative or intervening causes;
• material bearing on mens rea, including threats, instructions, coercion or intentional facilitation.

Quashing and Discharge

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC.[16] Quashing remains exceptional, but it is appropriate where the allegations and the unimpeached material, taken at face value, do not disclose the ingredients of abetment or where continuation would amount to abuse of process.[17]

At the quashing stage, the court does not conduct a mini-trial or decide disputed evidence. Nevertheless, it must perform the legal exercise of asking whether the alleged acts can amount to instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. A suicide note cannot immunise an otherwise ingredient-deficient prosecution from scrutiny.[3][17]

At the charge or discharge stage, the court applies the relevant prima facie standard rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. In Mahendra Awase, the Supreme Court held that even taking the prosecution material at its highest, the charge was groundless because intention and instigation were absent.[7]

At trial, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court must separately assess proof of suicide, authenticity and reliability of the note, the alleged abetting conduct, mens rea, and the causal or proximate connection.[18]

Practical Legal Checklist

Before asserting or contesting liability under Section 108 BNS for abetment of suicide, the following key legal questions should be answered:

1. Did the death occur before or after 1 July 2024, and which substantive code applies?
2. Is the death proved to be suicide rather than accident or homicide?
3. Which specific limb of Section 45 is invoked—instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid?
4. What precise act, word or omission is attributed to each accused?
5. What material establishes the accused’s intention to incite or facilitate suicide?
6. Is there a continued course of targeted conduct, a proximate trigger, or both?
7. Are there intervening events or alternative causes weakening the alleged nexus?
8. Was the original suicide note properly recovered, seized and preserved?
9. Is authorship established, particularly through admitted handwriting, witnesses or forensic examination?
10. Do the contents describe abetting conduct or merely assign blame?
11. Is Section 117 BSA or another statutory presumption applicable, and are its foundational facts established?
12. What procedural remedy fits the stage—anticipatory bail, regular bail, quashing under Section 528 BNSS, discharge, trial defence or appeal?

Conclusion

Abetment of Suicide under Section 108 BNS is not a provision of automatic attribution. The prosecution must prove suicide plus legally defined abetment, accompanied by the necessary mens rea and a sufficiently live connection with the death. The statutory threshold is not met merely because the accused harassed the deceased, was engaged in a dispute with the deceased, pursued legal remedies, or was named in a suicide note.[7][3]

At the same time, the doctrine does not protect deliberate, sustained and targeted conduct calculated to destroy the victim’s ability to resist and culminating in a proximate trigger. The correct approach is fact-sensitive: verify the note, reconstruct the chronology, identify the precise limb of Section 45, test mens rea and proximity, consider statutory presumptions where applicable, and apply the evidentiary standard appropriate to the procedural stage.

References

1. [PDF] The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | India Code
2. BNS Section 108: Abetment of suicide | IndiaCode – The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 108: Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, …
3. [PDF] 2026 INSC 886 – Live Law
4. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – India Code
5. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6. Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of FIR In Ex-MP Suicide Case – The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an order quashing an FIR alleging suicidal dea…
7. MAHENDRA AWASE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Supreme Court of India, 2025 INSC 76 — 2. The present appeal calls in question the judgment and orde…
8. Supreme Court Half Yearly Complete Criminal Digest 2025 – Arrest Criminal Law – Arrest – Defiance of Court Order – Grant of Bail – Police, with knowledge of t…
9. 2025 INSC 168
10. Mohit Singhal & Anr. v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. — Indian Kanoon – Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 3578 of 2023, decided 1 December 2023
11. Section 26 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Indian Kanoon – Statements made by A as to the cause of his or her death, referring respectively to the murder, the
12. Record Of Proceedings_SUPREME COURT
13. ARAVIND KUMAR, J. – api.sci.gov.in
14. [PDF] 2025 INSC 309 – Supreme Court of India – the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial corroborat…
15. 1 THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023
16. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – India Code – Contains all Enforced Central and State Acts linked with Subordinate Data like Rules,Regulations,Not…
17. [PDF] 2025 INSC 607 Criminal Appeal No(s). 4268-4269 of 2024 Page 1 … – SHENBAGAVALLI AND ORS. … AP Page 1 2025 INSC 607 Criminal Appeal No(s). These two criminal appeals…
18. JUDGMENT