A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORTIES .................................................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 5
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 6
2. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: THE LAW .................................................................................... 7
3. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: INGREDIENTS ........................................................................... 8
3.1 COMMISSION OF SUICIDE: ............................................................................................ 8
3.2 ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: ................................................................................................ 9
3.3 DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED: ................................................................... 11
4. SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF SECTION 306 .................................................................. 12
4.1 PROVISIONS UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 ................................................. 15
5. ASPECTS OF SECTION 306 .................................................................................................... 18
5.1 BURDEN OF PROOF .......................................................................................................... 18
5.2 DUTY OF THE COURT ...................................................................................................... 18
6. CO-RELATION BETWEEN S. 107 AND S. 306 ..................................................................... 19
6.1 ABETMENT ......................................................................................................................... 19
6.2 ABETTOR ............................................................................................................................ 21
6.3 CO-RELATION BETWEEN S. 107 AND S. 306................................................................ 22
7. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE AND CONSENT KILLING ....................................................... 24
7.1 EUTHANASIA ..................................................................................................................... 24
7.2 PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE ..................................................................................... 24
7.3 ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG CASE ................................................................ 25
8. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY ............................................ 27
9. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: RECENT JUDGMENTS........................................................... 28
10. ABETMENT/ ATTEMPT OF SUICIDE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ........................... 32
10.1 DATA ANALYSIS ON ATTEMPT TO SUICIDE.................................................................. 32
10.2 DATA ANALYSIS ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE .............................................................. 36
11. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE .................................. 37
11.1 LEGISLATIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES ....................................................................... 37
11.2 INTERNATIONAL CASES ................................................................................................. 39
12. SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 40
12.1 SUGGESTIONS ................................................................................................................... 40
12.2 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 41

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 1

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

INDEX OF AUTHORTIES

BOOKS

 Essay on Indian Penal Code, 1860 – K.N. Chandrashekhar, Pillai, Universal Law Publication,
2012. ........................................................................................................................................ 17

 Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S.N. Mishra, 17th ed. Central Law Publication Company, 2012 . 24

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – K.D. Gaur, 4th Ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd,
2013 ......................................................................................................................................... 10

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Prof. T. Bhattacharya, 6th Ed., Central Law Agency, First Ed.
– 1994, Reprint 2010.................................................................................................................. 9

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Rattan Lal and Dhiraj Lal, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, 32nd Ed., 2013 ......................................................................................................... 20

CASES

Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal ................................................................................................. 10

Aroma Philemon v. State ...................................................................................................................... 15
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India .................................................................................. 28
Bijoy Uraon v. State of Bihar................................................................................................................ 12
Bimla Devi v State of Punjab................................................................................................................ 17
Brij Lal v. Prem Chand ......................................................................................................................... 12
Chandan Soni v. State ............................................................................................................................. 7
Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P. ............................................................................................................ 13
Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh ............................................................................. 20
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab ................................................................................................................ 27
Girijashankar v. State of M.P ................................................................................................................ 12
Gurbachan Singh v Satpal singh ........................................................................................................... 10
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh ......................................................................................................... 17
Hans Raj v State of Haryana ................................................................................................................. 16
J. S. Ghura v. State of Rajasthan ........................................................................................................... 14
Jagganath Mondal v. State of W.B. ........................................................................................................ 8
K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivas Rao ................................................................................................ 12
M. Mohan v. State, Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police ........................................... 10, 11
Mohan Chand Kholia v. State ............................................................................................................... 12
Naresh Marotrao v. Union of India (1995) CriLJ 96 (Bom). .................................................................. 5
Nirmal Devi .......................................................................................................................................... 12
P. Rathinam v. Union of India .............................................................................................................. 28
Partha Dey v. State of Tripura .............................................................................................................. 14
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat ..................................................................................... 13
Raghunath Das v. Emperor ..................................................................................................................... 6
Ram Kumar v. State of M.P. ................................................................................................................. 12

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 2

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ..................................................................................... 9, 13, 16

Ramnath Ajinath Bhandwalkar v. State of Maharashtra ....................................................................... 14
Ratan Lal v. State of M.P ...................................................................................................................... 13
Romesh Kumar v. State of Punjab ........................................................................................................ 16
S. Abboy v. R. Sundarajan .................................................................................................................... 13
S. T. Dayannand Reddy v. State of Karnataka...................................................................................... 12
Sahebrao&Anr v State of Maharashtra ................................................................................................. 16
Samir Samanta v. State of West Bengal ............................................................................................... 13
Sanjay Jain v. State of M.P. .................................................................................................................. 13
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v State of Madhya Pradesh................................................................... 16
Satish v. State of Maharashtra .............................................................................................................. 14
Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab ............................................................................................................... 8
Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree ............................................................................................. 13
State of Gujarat v. Pradyman, ............................................................................................................... 14
State of Haryana v. Jai Prakash ............................................................................................................. 13
State of Karnataka v Anni Poojary ....................................................................................................... 15
State of Madhya Pradesh v Ashok ........................................................................................................ 17
State of Maharashtra v. Vasant Shankar Mhasane ................................................................................ 13
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh ............................................................................................................... 12
State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh ............................................................................................................. 13
State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal .................................................................................................. 10
Sudarshan Kumar v. State of Haryana .................................................................................................. 12
Supchand v. State of Maharashtra......................................................................................................... 14
Tapan Pal v. State of West Bengal ........................................................................................................ 13
Tej Singh v. State .................................................................................................................................. 11
Thangappandian v State ........................................................................................................................ 11
Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. State of Rajasthan .......................................................................................... 11
Wazir Chand v State of Haryana............................................................................................................. 8

OTHER AUTHORITIES

 International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies :ISSN:2348-8212:Volume 4

Issue 1......................................................................................................................................35

 Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India – 2006, National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India ........................................................................................ 28

 International Association for Suicide Prevention .................................................................... 28

 Schulman, Suicide and Suicide Prevention: A Legal

Analysis....................................................................................................................................32

STATUTES

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 The Indian Evidence Act,1872

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 3

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860

 The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

 The Sati Prohibition Act, 1987

WEBSITES AND LINKS:

 www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
 www.ijlljs.in
 www.indiankanoon.org
 www.lawkam.org
 www.lawrato.com
 www.vikaspedia.in
 www.indianlawcases.com
 www.blog.ipleaders.in
 www.lawteacher.net
 www.legalindia.com
 www.legalservicesindia.com
 www.ncrb.nic.in

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 4

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. AC- Appeals Chamber

2. AIR- All India Reporter
3. AP-Andhra Pradesh
4. Art.- Article
5. Bom.- Bombay
6. CJ.-Chief Justice
7. Cr.P.C.- Code of Criminal Procedure
8. CriLJ- Criminal Law Journal
9. Edn.,-Edition
10. IPC- Indian Penal Code
11. J.- Justice
12. Ker.-Kerala
13. MP-Madhya Pradesh
14. P.- Page
15. Pat- Patna
16. SC- Supreme Court
17. SCALE- Supreme Court Almanac
18. SCC- Supreme Court Cases
19. SCJ- Supreme Court Journal
20. SCR-Supreme Court Reporter
21. Sec.- Section
22. Supdt.- Superintendent
23. UP-Uttar Pradesh
24. UK- United Kingdom
25. US- United States
26. V.- Versus
27. Vol.- Volume

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 5

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

1. INTRODUCTION

Protecting the sanctity of life has been a sine qua non intention in the minds of Indian
Legislators while drafting any law. Apart from ensuring a healthy existence to a human life it
has also aimed at protecting the life itself. The level of respect shown towards a person’s life
by state is best explained by the fact that it not only prohibits a person from taking another
person’s life but also penalises a person who himself tries to put an end to his life by means
of suicide. Suicide has not been declared as a crime by the IPC obviously because once a
person successfully commits suicide that person is no longer alive to be prosecuted and the
crime abates with him. An attempt to commit suicide is punishable under S. 309. Not only
this but also a person who assists or abets any other person in commission of suicide is also
subjected a certain term of punishment. An abetment to commit suicide is also made
punishable under S. 305 and 306. These sections are based on a reasonable public policy to
prevent other persons’ involvement, instigation and aiding in terminating in one’s life. 1It
takes care of situations and threats imposed by death baiters.2If 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 word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however its meaning and
import is well known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self" and "cide" means
"killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must
commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of
killing himself. Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal law,
though at one time it was a felony in England. In England, the former law was of the nature
of being a deterrent to people as it provided penalties of two types:
1. Degradation of corpse of the deceased by burying it on the highway with a stake through
its chest.
2. Forfeiture of property of the deceased by the State.
This penalty was later distilled down to merely not providing a full Christian burial, unless
the deceased could be proved to be of unsound mind. However, currently there is no
punishment for suicide after the enactment of the Suicide Act, 1961 which proclaims that the
rule of law whereby it was a crime for a person to commit suicide has been abrogated.

1
Naresh Marotrao v. Union of India (1995) CriLJ 96 (Bom).
2
Raghunath Das v. Emperor AIR 1920 Pat 502.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 6

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

2. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: THE LAW

“When you have said or done a thing, that fixes it, and you must take the consequences”

-The Red Queen to Alice.

 Section 305 under Indian Penal Code, 1860-

If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot,
or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a
term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Instance:

1. The material placed by the prosecution before the trial judge must be such that if it is
accepted at its face value, it would establish that the commission of suicide by the girl
below 18 years of age was direct and proximate cause of abetment or instigation
offered by the accused3.

 Section 306 under Indian Penal Code, 1860-

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.

Illustration:

1. If A persuades B to kill himself by taking poison and B takes it, then A would be
liable as an abettor under this section.

Thus, In order to convict a person under section 305 or 306, IPC, there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or a direct act which lead the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and this act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

3
Chandan Soni v. State 2006 Cr.L.J 3528 (Chh).

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 7

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

3. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: INGREDIENTS

Suicide is self-murder and the person committing suicide is beyond the reach of the law.
Nevertheless, it does not follow that abetment of suicide is not forbidden by the code. A man
encouraging and abetting another to commit suicide is certainly a criminal and his act is
punishable under section 306. In fact, such an act is not only criminal but condemnable from
every point of view. To make out a case of abetment, there must be instigation by the
accused—provoking, inciting or encouraging a person to do an act. The offence of abetment
under this section must conform to the definition given under section 107 of Indian Penal
Code, i.e., there must be instigation, cooperation or intentional assistance given to the person
committing suicide. Before the actual conviction of a person under Sec. 306, it must be
established that such other person has committed suicide. Section 306 creates a specific
offence and the liability does not arise in case of an attempted suicide which will attract
section 309, IPC. The direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is
necessary4.

Thus, in order to bring a successful conviction under this section it is important that its three
essential ingredients stand to be fulfilled i.e. firstly, the deceased should have committed
suicide, secondly, the accused under this section should have abetted or instigated him/her to
commit such an act and thirdly, such the alleged involvement of the accused should be
direct5 in nature.

3.1 COMMISSION OF SUICIDE:

Before a person can be convicted for a abetment of suicide, it must first be established that
such other person has committed suicide. In Wazir Chand v State of Haryana6 , the deceased
was a newly married woman who died due to burn injuries. The accused person, the husband
and the father- in- law of the deceased, were charged for a abetting the suicide, The
prosecution was that the accused sprinkle kerosene on her closed and set her on fire. The
defence of the accused was that the burns were caused to the deceased by the accident. The
supreme court rejected the defence version, but in view of the fact that the prosecution had
feel to established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide, because of
some procedural lapses, set aside the conviction of the accused a sec 306 , IPC. Instead, it
convicted under sec 498 IPC.
4
Jagganath Mondal v. State of W.B., 2013 CriLJ 1994 (Cal).
5
Ibid.
6
AIR 1989 SC 378.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 8

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

As far as the first ingredient of abetment to suicide is concerned, i.e., the deceased should
have committed suicide, Supreme Court in a landmark judgement of Satvir Singh v. State of
Punjab7, Section 306 renders a person punishable of abetment to suicide only if the condition
of commission of suicide is fulfilled. This is essential because it is possible to abet the
commission of suicide and not a mere attempt in furtherance of same. It would be
preposterous if law would penalise such attempts also.

3.2 ABETMENT OF SUICIDE:

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section
306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence8. It also requires an active act
or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must
have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
To make out a case of abetment, they must be some active suggestion/ instigation,
provocation, incitement or encouragement by the accused to a person to do an act. The
offence of abetment must confirmed to the definition of the term ‘abetment’ given in section
107. There must be instigation, cooperation or intentional assistance given to the would-be
suicidee. Neither a mere suggestion nor a casual remark suggesting a suicide to commit
suicide would a amount to abetment to commit suicide. 9 It is not necessary, nor it is indeed a
part of the definition, that the suicide should have been committed in consequence of the
abetment. But, in order to render a person liable as an abettor, it is necessary that the abettor
should do something more than remaining a mute spectator. But, sometimes, it is conceivable
that even the person’s mere presence as spectator may encourage a person to do a deed,
which she might otherwise refrain from. In such cases, the question whether mere presence
amounted to intentionally aiding another will have to be decided.10

7
AIR 2001 SC 2826.
8
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Prof. T. Bhattacharya, 6th Ed., Central Law Agency, First Ed. – 1994, Reprint
2010
9
Ganga devi v. State (Delhi administration) (1985) 28 Del LT 35.
10
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – K.D. Gaur, 4th Ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 2013.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 9

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

In a landmark judgement of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh11, it was held that

‘instigation’ may be inferred from a series of acts on the part of accused that led to creation of
such circumstances where the deceased had no other option left with him or her than
committing suicide. This series of acts may include use of force, words, conduct, wilful
omission or deeds or for that matter even silence of accused in order to annoy or irritate the
deceased which resultantly caused the latter to take steps to put an end to one’s life. This
overt act has to necessarily coupled with a concomitant element called the mens rea to
encourage the deceased to commit suicide. However, in a series of judgements it has been
noted by the Apex Court that the use of the word ‘instigation’ need not be confused with
‘intimidation.’ Intimidation may as a result frighten the person on the receiving end which
may cause him or her to retaliate whereas statements as a result of instigation may provoke or
encourage the deceased to cause his death. In absence of any one of the element either mental
process of intentional aiding or an overt act to cause this instigation to commit suicide,
conviction will not be successfully sustained12.

The Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)13 had an
occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of
the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability
pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-
respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such
cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal 14, the Supreme Court has cautioned that the court
should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the
victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the court
that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and
such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court

11
2001 (9) SCC 618.
12
M. Mohan v. State, Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626; Amalendu Pal v.
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707.
13
(2009) 16 SCC 605.
14
(1994) 1 SCC 73.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 10

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty.

In Gurbachan Singh v Satpal singh15 the deceased, a newly wedded girl, died of burn injuries.
There was sufficient evidence about harassment and torture for bringing insufficient dowry.
She was also accused of carrying an illegitimate child. In view of this harassment, the
deceased committed suicide by setting herself a fire. It was held that the provocation given to
the deceased were grave and serious enough for an ordinary Indian woman to kill herself. The
evidence also revealed that none of her In-Laws made any attempt to save her from burn
injuries. The deceased’s parents were neither informed about her burns nor were prompt steps
taken for given her medical assistance. The accused were convicted for abetting the suicide.
However, mere unhappiness a matrimonial life pushing the wife to commit will not a tracked
Sec 498 A and Sec 306 of the IPC. In Thangappandian v State16 the only evidence against the
accused was that there were some petty quarrels between him and deceased wife. The madras
high court held that such petty quarrel could not be sought to be brought within the terms
“cruelty” contemplated under Sec 498A IPC. Under explanation to Sec 498A of IPC, cruelty
is stated to be wilful conduct, which is of such nature as is likely to drive a person to commit
suicide a person a reasonable nexus, therefore, needs to be established between the cruelty
and the suicide of the woman, in order to make a good the offence of cruelty. Accordingly,
the court refused to convict the accused under Sec 306 read with Sec 498A IPC.

3.3 DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED:

With regard to matters of instigation it has been reiterated in several Supreme Court
judgements that there should be a live or proximate link between the act of abetment and
actual commission of suicide17. In absence of such a link, the element of intention or aiding
cannot be attributed to the accused. Mere threats given by the accused in relation to involving
the family in false and frivolous cases cannot be brought under the ambit of instigation18.

15
AIR 1990 SC 209.
16
(1998) Cri LJ 993(Mad).
17
M. Mohan v. State, Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626.
18
Vijay Kumar Rastogi v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (2) Crimes 628 (Raj).

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 11

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

4. SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF SECTION 306

Encouraging a widow to commit sati has been held to be abetment of suicide. In Tej Singh v.
State19, the accused were members of the crowd, who had joined the funeral procession from
the house of the deceased to the cremation ground. The widow of the deceased was walking
in front of the procession with an intention to commit sati. The accused started shouting “Sati
Mata ki jai”. As the prosecution proceeded, about 100-150 people surrounded the police in
order to make it impossible for them to prevent the widow from committing sati. Ultimately,
the funeral pyre was set on fire with the widow sitting on it. It was held that all those persons
who joined that procession were aiding the widow in committing sati.

The charge of abetment of suicide is widely used in the cases of dowry demand related
suicides or suicides as a result of domestic violence or cruelty. In a landmark judgement,
according to whose factual matrix it was alleged that there were constant quarrels between a
couple over the husband’s consistent demand of dowry. Eventually on the fateful day during
a quarrel of the same kind the wife reacted by saying that she would consider death to be
better than her ruthless existence and the state of life she was going through. Upon this the
husband responded by saying that he would feel much relieved on her death. Immediately,
the wife set herself on fire. The court held the husband guilty of abetment to suicide on the
pretext that there was a close link between the act of instigation and commission of suicide20.

Similar situations such as constant beating and torture that led to formulation of mental
agony causing the wife to set herself along with her three children on fire 21, subjection to
maltreatment and starvation with the superadded fact of looking for another
girl22, maltreatment and taunting for bringing less dowry23, maltreatment and beating the wife
for not conceiving24, husband being obsessed with gambling and creation of ugly and hurtful
scenes in committing cruelty on the deceased25, history of pressure for cruelty and
divorce26, verbal remarks such as “You bloody whore, why don’t you die” (this remark being

19
AIR 1958 Raj 169.
20
Brij Lal v. Prem Chand, AIR 1989 SC 1661.
21
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532.
22
Girijashankar v. State of M.P. 1989 CriLJ 242 MP.
23
Nirmal Devi, 1983 CriLJ NOC 230 (P&H).
24
Sudarshan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 3024.
25
S. T. Dayannand Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2000 CriLJ 2064 Kant; Bijoy Uraon v. State of Bihar, 2000 Cri
LJ 3384 (Pat).
26
Ram Kumar v. State of M.P., 1998 CriLJ 952 (MP).

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 12

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

a part of verbal cruelty and serious provocation to the wife)27, accused pressurising his wife
with parting of land that she had received as a part of stridhan from her father28, and
transferring it in his name.

Although there has been a general agreement on the point that cruelty may itself not be
enough to cause an offence under abetment to suicide but where the accused has wilfully
produced an atmosphere as a result of which the deceased had no other option left and was
forced to commit suicide, a conviction may be upheld.29

In cases of extra-marital relationships, the mere fact that there was development of intimacy
between the deceased’s husband with another lady and his failure in fulfilling marital
obligation during the subsistence of marriage, it would per se not amount to cruelty. But if its
nature is of such a kind that drives or pushes the deceased to commit suicide it can be taken
under the ambit of abetment to suicide. In a case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of
Gujarat30 it was held that in absence of the above mentioned conditions and the fact that there
was just a one-sided love affair, fulfilment of all sorts of marital obligations by the accused
towards the deceased, no evidence of physical or mental torture to extract dowry, the
deceased being under ‘emotional stress’ due to an abortion followed by the death of the
daughter born out of the subsequent pregnancy, it cannot be held that it was the accused who
had intended or ever abetted his wife to commit suicide. For conviction it is necessary that a
chain of circumstances such as, outrageous acts of humiliation, be so created under which the
deceased would commit suicide31.

But conviction cannot lie in cases where words have been spoken or any conduct is in
continuance of feeling of anger or hard feelings. In such cases since the element of intention
remains lacking therefore it cannot be described as amounting to instigation32. In cases where
there is time gap between when the deceased was last harassed and her death33, evidences
showing that she was ashamed of faults and was hence committing suicide34, lack of enough

27
Mohan Chand Kholia v. State, 2003 CriLJ 1835 (All).
28
K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivas Rao, AIR 2003 SC 11.
29
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – K.D. Gaur, 4th Ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 2013.
30
2013 (3) MLJ (Crl) 700.
31
Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P., 2003 CriLJ 2185 (AP).
32
Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, (2009) 1 SCC 554.
33
Samir Samanta v. State of West Bengal, 1993 CriLJ 134 (Cal); Ratan Lal v. State of M.P. 1993 CriLJ 3723
(Cal).
34
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 CriLJ 4724 (SC).

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 13

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

evidences to show that whether the death of the deceased was accidental or suicidal35, the
deceased’s death took place within few months of marriage and absence of any complaints by
the deceased to her parents regarding any maltreatment, torture, for bringing insufficient
dowry36, no implication on the husband in dying declaration37,instances of quarrel due to
consumption of liquor38, the deceased was found to be of hot-tempered, quarrel-some and
out-spoken nature, her death being a result of dissatisfaction and unhappiness due to
economic disparity between her husband’s family and her parents’ family and not because of
alleged torture by her husband and his family members39, repeated proposals by the accused
to marry deceased40, failure of the accused to appear on the settled marriage ceremony date
with the deceased with whom he had a love affair cannot be attributed to intention of accused
to abet her to suicide or knowledge that commission of suicide was a likely
consequence41, performing of bigamy by husband and subsequently living separately due to
which the deceased found it difficult to find means for existence42, it cannot be conclusively
said that an abetment had necessarily been caused.

In a few cases charge of abetment to suicide has also been brought against the wife for her
immorality. In the case of Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P.43, the wife had an illicit relationship
with another man who used to pay frequent visits to their place, where on one such day he
openly announced that since the deceased’s wife had no problem with his visiting their place
of residence, therefore he would continue to come, subsequently took her away and kept her
for 4 days due to which the deceased committed suicide. The Supreme Court held that in light
of proximity and nexus between the behaviour and conduct of appellant and deceased’s wife
to the act of commission of suicide, no interference should be made with the clear and
unambiguous findings of the Lower Courts of holding the appellant guilty under section 306
of IPC.

35
State of Maharashtra v. Vasant Shankar Mhasane, 1993 CriLJ 1134.
36
State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh, 1992 CriLJ 2472 (P&H).
37
S. Abboy v. R. Sundarajan, AIR 1998 SC 958.
38
Sanjay Jain v. State of M.P., 2013 CriLJ 668 (Chh).
39
Tapan Pal v. State of West Bengal, 1992 CriLJ 1017 (Cal); State of Haryana v. Jai Prakash, AIR 2000 SC
3569.
40
Ramnath Ajinath Bhandwalkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 CriLJ 2497 (Bom).
41
Satish v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 CriLJ 935 (Bom).
42
Supchand v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 CriLJ 3939 (Bom).
43
AIR 2009 SC 2532.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 14

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

In other matters such as demand of money for recruitment to a job 44, publication of
defamatory article45 it cannot be said that there existed adequate or any instigation by the
accused to abet the deceased to commit suicide. Where the victim committed suicide after 5
months when she was raped, since the charge of rape was not being successfully proved
therefore conviction under abetment to suicide also could not be implicated46.

In cases of student suicide, where on finding gutka packets from the deceased, the Principal
scolded, hit and asked him to apologise before many people, the court held that it is
unimaginable that the latter had not instigated the former to commit suicide as his actions
were in consonance to maintaining discipline among the students47.

4.1 PROVISIONS UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down presumption as to abetment of
suicide by a married woman. Under this section, when it is found that a woman has been
subjected to cruelty as defined in section 498A, IPC, by her husband or his relatives, and she
is shown to have committed suicide within the period of seven years from the date of her
marriage, then the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or
such relative of her husband.

A Court may presume and convict the husband (or his relatives) for harassing and subjecting
his wife to ‘cruelty’ and there by driving her to commit suicide even if he (or his relatives) is
(or are) not formally charged under section 306, IPC along with section 498A of the IPC.
And where an accused is held guilty for cruelty under section 498A, he can, on the same
evidence, be convicted under section 306, IPC, for abetting the suicide. Similarly, a court can
convict a person under section 306, IPC, even if he is not charged under S. 498A, IPC 48.

For attracting the provisions of 113A, I.E.A., 1872, the following things has to be proved:
1. Suicide must be committed by a married woman
2. Suicide must have been abetted by husband or any relative of her husband
3. Suicide must be committed within seven years of the marriage

44
J. S. Ghura v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 CriLJ 2158 (Raj).
45
State of Gujarat v. Pradyman, 1999 CrLJ 3659 (MP).
46
Partha Dey v. State of Tripura, 2013 CriLJ 2101 (Gau).
47
Aroma Philemon v. State, 2013 CriLJ 1933 (Raj).
48
State of Karnataka v Anni Poojary (2005) Cr LJ 2662 (Kant).

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 15

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

4. She must have been subjected to cruelty (as defined in 498A of Indian Penal Code) by her
husband.

Presumption under section l13A, Indian Evidence Act, refers to one of the three ingredients
of abetment as defined in section 107, IPC, i.e. instigation, conspiracy and intentional aiding
of the act. Where conduct of the accused indicated that he did not want her to die even though
he might have treated her cruelly earlier, it cannot be presumed that he abetted the suicide.

The presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman is rebuttable. If the accused is

able to prove that the woman has committed suicide by other reason or she was not harassed
in her matrimonial house by her in-laws in the name of demanding more dowry. This
presumption can be rebutted. There is a noteworthy fact that the presumption of 113A, Indian
Evidence Act, is applicable only against the husband not against woman. This was revealed
in an interesting case that came before the HC of Madhya Pradesh in 2000.

The law of evidence being procedural law, sections 113A and 113B are retrospective in their
application.49

These enact a rule of presumption. It should be noted that the initial burden of proof is on the
prosecution. In other words, on the prosecution discharging the initial burden of proof that the
husband or in-laws subjected the woman to cruelty, etc, then the court will presume that the
husband and the in-laws abetted the suicide by the woman. Similarly, once the initial burden
that the woman died on account of demand for dowry, then the presumption under section
113B, IEA, 1872 will apply. Both the sections are retrospective. Thus if at the date of
occurrence it is shown that within seven years of marriage, the married woman committed
suicide or was murdered, the presumption will apply, even though this period commenced
before the coming into force of the provisions of sections 113A and 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act.

The mere fact that a married woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage
and that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his relatives does not automatically
give rise the presumption that the suicide was abetted by the husband or his relatives, as the
case may be. A court is not bound to presume that the accused persons have abetted the
suicide even though the prosecution has established that the deceased woman committed
49
Romesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1989) 2 Cri. L.J. 2087.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 16

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage and that the accused subjected her to
cruelty50.

The difficulty in most of the cases of this nature arises on account of the following factors:

(a) Direct evidence is hardly available.

(b) The circumstantial evidence is sometimes, so scanty that the accused escapes from the
arm of law.
(c) Even accidental or suicidal deaths (without any abetment) are tried to pass on as dowry
deaths and in such cases proof is ordinarily not available51.

In Bimla Devi v State of Punjab52 , the Punjab and the Haryana court said that merely
providing that the married woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and
that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or in-laws was not sufficient to bring into
operation presumption under section 113A. The Court should have regard to all other
circumstances. Then only it should apply the presumption. Further, cruelty or harassment of
the married woman by her husband or in-laws should be of such quality to drive or prompt
her to commit suicide. It is only then that the court should apply the presumption of abetment
to suicide. It may be emphasized that presumption will arise only when the married woman
committing suicide was subjected to cruelty by the husband or in-laws. The presumption will
apply if the woman had in fact committed suicide.53 The legislature has by amending the
Penal Code and Evidence Act made Penal Law more strident for dealing with and punishing
offences against abetment to suicide. Such strident laws would have a deterrent effect on the
offenders only if they are so stridently implemented by the law courts to achieve the
legislative intent. On the facts found and the offence proved to have been committed leading
to suicidal death. For offence under Section 306, IPC, the sentence may extend to ten years.
In case the husband is found to have harassed his wife to such an extent as to drive her to
commit suicide, sentence of five years would be proper sentence for the crime with the
amount of fine of Rs. 20000 to be paid to the parents of the deceased.

50
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618; Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v State of Madhya
Pradesh 2002 SC 1998; Hans Raj v State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2790,(2004) 12 SCC 257; Sahebrao&Anr v
State of Maharashtra (2006) 9 SCC 794.
51
Essay on Indian Penal Code, 1860 – K.N. Chandrashekhar, Pillai, Universal Law Publication, 2012.
52
Unreported Criminal appeal no. 424-SD 1985 decided on 12.8.1988.
53
State of Madhya Pradesh v Ashok,(1993) 1 Crimes 764.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 17

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

5. ASPECTS OF SECTION 306

5.1 BURDEN OF PROOF

In order to prove a case under this section the prosecution has to majorly rely on
circumstantial evidences. It is not necessary that all cases would carry direct proofs for
establishing a nexus between the act of instigation and suicide. The two conditions as
mentioned in the preceding sections are to be necessarily proved. The burden of proof, as laid
down in the Supreme Court judgement of Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh54, heavily lies on
the prosecution. It is necessary that clear evidences including circumstantial or direct, if
available, to support the prosecution story should be produced before the court.

5.2 DUTY OF THE COURT

Through a series of judgements it can be observed that a very protective approach towards
women has been adopted by the judicial minds. In light of increasing crimes against women it
is regarded as a duty of the court to bring such offended under the record books. Judges have
sensitised over the protection of women’s dignity. The kind of effect rendered due to such an
assault should not be generalised and therefore be decided on the basis of facts and
circumstances of each case.
It is not only the judicial minds but also the legislature who has expressed its concern over
this matter. In furtherance of the same a presumption has been injected in the Criminal Justice
System by way of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 wherein the death of any
woman if occurs within the seven years of her marriage and it is shown that she was
subjected to cruelty by her husband or any of the husband’s relative then it shall be presumed
that her death was a result of abetment caused by the husband or his relative.

54
AIR 1990 SC 209.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 18

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

6. CO-RELATION BETWEEN S. 107 AND S. 306

6.1 ABETMENT
is an offence as defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Abetment in its literal
sense means, the instigation of a person to do (or not to do) an act in a certain way, or aid
given by some person to another either of his own accord or under the provisions governing
joint and constructive liability. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
As per Indian penal code, Section 107 deals with Abetment as under:
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;

(Thirdly) — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a

material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF ABETMENT

The main ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment under section 107 are:
I. There must be an abetment
II. The abetment must be an offence or an act which would be an offence, if committed by a
person capable in law of committing the offence with same intention or knowledge as that of
the abettor.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 19

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

III. Mens Rea or the Guilty mind.

Mens Rea is a very important element in abetting of an offence. Requirement of mens rea is
considered as a pre-condition for liability of the offence of abetment55.
Illustration:
1. If A says to B that ‘I am going to kill C’ and B replies ‘Do as you wish and take the
consequences’, whereupon A kills C, B cannot be said to have instigated A to stab C.
Thus, B is not liable for abetment.

As per the section, abetment can be done by various ways, i.e., by instigating, conspiracy or
by aiding.

1. Abetment by Instigation: The word “instigate” means to goad or urge forward or to

provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing an act prohibited by the law. A person is said
to instigate another, when he actively suggests or estimates him to do an unlawful act
by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express
solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragements56.

Another form of instigation is that of approval of an act. While generally passive or

unresponsive approval may not necessarily be considered to be instigation, there are specific
instances when approval has been held to instigation.

Illustration:

1. A incites B to kill C by uttering words ‘Maro Maro’ (beat beat) and D puts a knife in
A’s hand. Here both A and D are guilty of abetting the offence of murder, one by
instigation and the other by aiding to commit the offence.

2. Abetment by Conspiracy: The second leg of the definition of abetment is the

abetment engaging with one or more persons in a conspiracy to commit an offence.
The distinction between an offence of abetment by conspiracy and the offence of
criminal conspiracy, so far as an agreement to commit an offence is considered, is that
for abetment by conspiracy, mere agreement is not enough. An act or illegal omission

55
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Rattan Lal and Dhiraj Lal, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 32nd Ed.,
2013.
56
Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC 750.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 20

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing
conspired for.

Illustration:

1. A, a servant enters into an agreement with thieves to keep the door of his master’s
house open in the night so that they might commit theft. A, according to the agreed
plan keeps the doors open and the thieves take away the master’s property. A is guilty
of abetment by conspiracy for the offence of theft. But should the thieves not come; A
will not be liable under this section.

3. Abetment by aid: A person is said to abet the commission of an offence, if he

intentionally renders assistance or gives aid by doing an act or omitting to do an act.
Mere intension to render assistance is not sufficient. Intentional aid consists of
following three components:

• Doing of an act directly assisting the commission of the crime, or

• Illegally omitting to do a thing which one is bound to do, or

• Doing any act which may facilitate the commission or the crime by another.

Illustrations:

1. A incites B to kill C by uttering words ‘Maro Maro’ (beat beat) and D puts a knife in
A’s hand. Here, both A and D are guilty of abetting the offence of murder, one by
instigation and the other by aiding to commit the offence.
2. A priest who officiates at a bigamous marriage was held to have intentionally aided in
the commission of a marriage prohibited by law.

6.2 ABETTOR
As per Indian Penal Code, Section 108 deals with Abettor as under:
Abettor—A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the
commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of
committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 21

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

Explanation I— The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation II— To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted
should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

Explanation III— It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of
committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that
of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.

Explanation IV— The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an
abetment is also an offence.

Explanation V— It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by

conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is
sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.

The abettor could either be an instigator or a conspirator or a person giving aid to the
commission of a crime. The abetment must be of an offence or an act which amounts to an
offence. If the thing abetted is not an offence, then the person abetting will not be considered
an abettor and is not under the scope of this section. The section states that for an offence of
abetment it is not essential that the person abetted should be capable in law, of committing
that offence, or that such person should have the same guilty intention as that of the abettor.

Illustrations:

1. When the substantive offence is not established and the principal offender is
acquitted, then generally the abettor cannot be held guilty. In another words, when the
substantive charge fails, then the charge of abetment also fails.57
2. A instigates B to murder D, and B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D, but D
recovers from the wound, A is guilty of instigating B to murder despite of the fact that
the act of B did not produce the desired effect58.

6.3 CO-RELATION BETWEEN S. 107 AND S. 306

57
Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of Assam AIR 1959 SC 673.
58
State of Maharashtra v.Pandurang Ramji 1971 ILR (Bom) 1061.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 22

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

Abetment of suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding

a person in committing suicide. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate
or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature
and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court are clear that in order to convict a
person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or a direct act which let the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.
No straight jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case
there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there
may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct relationship
between section 306 and Section 107. Therefore, in such a case an inference has to be drawn
from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such
which in fact had created the situation that a person committed suicide.

In order to convict a person under section 306, IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide.59

59
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S.N. Mishra, 17th ed. Central Law Publication Company, 2012.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 23

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

7. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE AND CONSENT KILLING

Abetment of suicide is an act of abetting, instigating or aiding a person to an extent that

drives him to commit suicide. The Indian Penal Provisions do not punish abetment if it is an
attempted suicide. For bringing a case under S. 305 and S. 306, the suicide must not be a
mere attempt but it must have been completed. Both Abetment of suicide and Consent killing
involves death of a person, but the concepts of both the matters are entirely different and a
thin line demarcates both the acts of abetment of suicide and consent killing. The former is an
offence, which is an outcome of instigation or provocation and is punishable under section
306 of Indian Penal Code while the latter is homicide by consent, Exception 5 to section
300,IPC and punishable under section 304,IPC.60

Illustration: If a doctor to hasten his patient’s death, who is terminally ill (incurable disease)
injects poison with patient’s consent, the doctor will be liable for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under section 304, IPC.; but if the doctor places the poison by patient’s
bed and he takes it, the doctor will be liable for abetment of suicide under section 306, IPC.

7.1 EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia is derived from Greek roots ‘eu’ means ‘well or good’ and ‘thanatos’ means
‘death’. In common terminology euthanasia means the act or practice of putting to death
painlessly, esp. in order to release a man from incurable suffering. There may be three
situations when euthanasia might take place viz.:
1) ‘Voluntary euthanasia.’ occurs when a person voluntarily requests the termination of his
or her life;
2) ‘Non-voluntary euthanasia’ when a person is not mentally fit to make an informed request
for termination of life ;
3) ‘Involuntary euthanasia’ when a person has not made a request for termination of his or
her life.

7.2 PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE

Assisted suicide is suicide committed with the aid of another person, sometimes a physician.
The term is often used interchangeably with physician-assisted suicide (PAS), which involves
a doctor "knowingly and intentionally providing a person with the knowledge or means or
60
International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies :ISSN:2348-8212:Volume 4 Issue 1.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 24

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

both required to commit suicide, including counselling about lethal doses of drugs,
prescribing such lethal doses or supplying the drugs.” Assisted suicide and euthanasia are
sometimes combined under the umbrella term "assisted dying". Other euphemisms in
common use are "physician-assisted dying", "physician-assisted death", "aid in dying", "death
with dignity", "dying with dignity", "right to die" "compassionate death", "compassionate
dying", "end-oflife choice", and "medical assistance at the end of life".
Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy
killing"). In cases of euthanasia, the physician administers the means of death, usually a lethal
drug. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is always at the request and with the consent of the
patient, since he or she self-administers the means of death. According to recent statistics,
more than half of the oncologists have received requests from patients wanting to end their
life. Physicians are only allowed to prescribe lethal medications in jurisdictions where it is
legal, regardless of what the patient wants or the prognosis for their disease.

1. Active Euthanasia: Under this category, the person consenting his or her own death
is administered with some lethal medication or injection, which would end his/her
life.
2. Passive Euthanasia: Under this category, generally person whose life is to be ended
is in an unconscious state and his life is ended by stopping his life support system or
discontinuation of the medication which helps the survival of the person, after taking
due permission from the court.61

7.3 ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG CASE62

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was a former nurse from Haldipur, Uttar Kannada, Karnataka
in India. In 1973, while working as a junior nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel,
Mumbai, she was sexually assaulted by a ward boy, Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki and had been
in a vegetative state since the assault. On 24 January 2011, after she had been in this status
for 37 years, the Supreme Court of India responded to the plea for euthanasia filed by Aruna's
friend journalist PinkiVirani, by setting up a medical panel to examine her. The court turned
down the mercy killing petition on 7 March 2011.
THE CASE

61
Ibid.
62
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India & Ors (2011) 4 SCC 454.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 25

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

On the night of 27thNovember, 1973, Shanbaug was sexually assaulted by Sohanlal Bhartha
Walmiki, a sweeper on contract at the King Edward Memorial Hospital. Sohanlal attacked
her while she was changing clothes in the hospital basement. He choked her with a dog chain
and sodomized her. The asphyxiation cut off oxygen supply to her brain, resulting in brain
stem contusion injury and cervical cord injury apart from leaving her cortically blind. The
police case was registered as a case of robbery and attempted murder on account of the
concealment of anal rape by the doctors under the instructions of the Dean of the hospital, Dr.
Deshpande, perhaps to avoid the social rejection of the victim, and her impending marriage.
Sohanlal was caught and convicted, and served two concurrent seven-year sentences for
assault and robbery, but neither for rape and nor for sexual molestation, unnatural sexual
offence. Since the assault in 1973, she has been in a vegetative state.

THE VERDICT
Refusing mercy killing of Aruna Shanbaug63, a two-judge bench of Supreme Court
comprising of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, in a landmark judgment on
7 th March 2011, allowed "passive euthanasia" of withdrawing life support to patients in
(PVS) but rejected outright active euthanasia of ending life through administration of lethal
substances. The apex court while framing the guidelines for passive euthanasia asserted that it
would now become the law of the land until Parliament enacts a suitable legislation to deal
with the issue. The bench also asked Parliament to delete Section 309 IPC (attempt to
suicide). A person attempts suicide in a depression, and hence he needs help, rather than
punishment," Justice Katju writing the judgment said. The Apex Court noted that though
there is no statutory provision for withdrawing life support system from a person in PVS, it
was of the view that "passive euthanasia" could be permissible in certain cases for which it
laid down guidelines and cast the responsibility on high courts to take decisions on pleas for
mercy killings.

63
“Aruna to live, but SC says ‘passive euthanasia’ legal”- Hindustan Times, New Delhi, March 07, 2011.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 26

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

8. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY

The constitutional validity of this section has been challenged in the case of Gian Kaur v.
State of Punjab64, wherein the constitutional bench by overruling the judgement in the case
of P. Rathinam v. Union of India65 held this section as not to be ultra vires of the Constitution
and hence regarding both euthanasia and assisted suicide as unlawful.

In Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India66, the Supreme Court held, and rightly so,
that physician-assisted suicide is an offence under S. 306 of the IPC. The assistance of a
doctor may be active or passive. In the former, he(or a third party) actively assists another in
ending his life, while in the latter, he simply does not do anything to save his life. In either
case, active or passive euthanasia, he becomes liable as an abettor of suicide. If a person
becomes unsuccessful in terminating his life, he becomes liable under S 309, IPC. If he is not
in a position, say because of brain death or vegetative state, to end his life, and someone else
helps him to do so, he becomes abettor.

In Common Cause( A Registered Society) v. Union of India67, the petitioner, contending that
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug case was wrongly decided, urged the Supreme Court to
declare that “right to live with dignity” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India takes in
its fold the “right to die with dignity” and that a person with deteriorated health or terminally-
ill is entitled to execute ‘My Living Will and Attorney Authorisation’, which can be
presented to hospital for appropriate action in the event of executants being admitted to
hospital with serious illness or chronic diseases or likely to go into a state of terminal illness
or permanent vegetative state so as to get rid of cruel and unwanted medical treatment from
doctors in order to artificially prolong his lifespan and to relieve those who help him in
ending his life from criminal liability. The prayer was counter argued by the fact that it is, as
per the Hippocratic Oath, the primary duty of the doctors to save life of his patients. The
Supreme Court, after hearing arguments of both the parties, carefully looking into the
pronouncements in the Gian Kaur and the Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug cases and realising
that the latter holds the field in regard to assisted-suicide in India, referred the question to a
constitutional bench for its consideration and for clear enunciation of propositions of law.

64
1996 (2) SCC 648.
65
AIR 1994 SC 1844.
66
(2011) 4 SCC 454.
67
(2014) 3 SCALE 1.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 27

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

9. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: RECENT JUDGMENTS

1. Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State Of A.P.68

SUBMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION:
1. The appellant is an agriculturist who had harassed his agriculture labour (servant)
deceased Ramulu by levelling the allegation that he had committed theft of some gold
ornaments two days prior to his death.
2. The appellant had demanded Rs.7,000/- from the deceased which was given in
advance to him at the time when he was kept in employment.
3. The prosecution further alleged that the deceased Ramulu could not bear the
harassment meted out to him and he committed suicide by consuming pesticides.
4. The prosecution in support of its case examined the father of the deceased Urikonda
Jammanna in which he had stated that his son Ramulu was a farm servant and used to
work at the house of the appellant.
5. He also stated that the appellant gave Rs.7,000/- in advance to his son.
6. He also stated that about two years ago, the appellant had asked his son (Ramulu) that
his wrist watch was missing from his house and harassed him on which his son had
returned the watch to the appellant.
7. In his statement, he stated that the appellant also levelled the allegation that the gold
ear-rings were also missing from his house and the same were stolen by Ramulu.
8. He also stated that the appellant also demanded the advance of Rs.7,000/- paid to
Ramulu at the time of his employment.
9. He further stated that Ramulu committed suicide because the appellant had levelled
the allegation of theft of ornaments.
10. The prosecution also examined Balamma, the mother of the deceased. She also
corroborated the statement of PW1 and gave same version of the incident in her
testimony.
11. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the Code and his
conviction on appeal was confirmed by the High Court

SUBMISSION BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

68
2010 (1) SCC 750.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 28

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

1. The Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is
totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under section 306 of the Code
can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
1. The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its
meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui' means `self' and
`cide' means `killing', thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person
committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by
him in achieving his object of killing himself.
2. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful
offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section
309 of IPC.
3. By no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the
deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under section
306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the
deceased is unsustainable in law.s
4. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
5. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear
that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to
push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

In the light of the provisions of law and the settled legal positions crystallized by a series of
judgments of this Court, the conviction of the appellant was set aise and the appeal filed was
allowed.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 29

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

2. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India69

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. On the night of 27thNovember, 1973, Shanbaug was sexually assaulted by Sohanlal
Bhartha Walmiki, a sweeper on contract at the King Edward Memorial Hospital.
Sohanlal attacked her while she was changing clothes in the hospital basement.
2. He choked her with a dog chain and sodomized her. The asphyxiation cut off oxygen
supply to her brain, resulting in brain stem contusion injury and cervical cord injury
apart from leaving her cortically blind.
3. Since then, she was bed-ridden. In 2010, she was fed mashed food and she made
certain sounds when served with her favourite food.
4. The hospital had taken a good care of her and she did not develop a single sore. She
had brittle bones. She could open her eyes and make certain sounds.
5. Pinky Virani, a socialist, filed a petition in Supreme Court that she be put to rest
because she is living a life of indignity.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE:

1. When a person is in PVS, should withholding or withdrawal of life sustaining
therapies be permissible or not unlawful?
2. If the patient has previously expressed a wish not to have life sustaining system in
case of acute pain or PVS, should his or her wish be respected in case situation arises?
3. In a case a person has not previously expressed such wish, if his family or next of his
kin makes a request to withdraw fertile life sustaining systems, should their wishes be
respected?
4. Aruna Shanbaug has been looked after by the KEM Hospital for last 37 years, so who
has the authority for taking decisions on her behalf?

SUBMISSION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

1. Article 21 of the Constitution entitles every person to quality of life consistent with
his human personality.
2. That the right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every citizen.

69
(2011) 4 SCC 454.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 30

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

SUBMISSION BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF UNION

OF INDIA:
1. Aruna Shanbaug has a right to live in her present state.
2. Withdrawal or withholding of hydrated food and medical support is unknown to
Indian law and contrary to law.
3. The aforesaid acts or series of acts would be cruel, inhumane and intolerable.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

1. The Court made a distinction between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. The
Court said that active euthanasia is illegal and not allowed in India. There is no
provision in India as to legal procedure for withdrawal of life support systems to a
patient in Permanent Vegetative State or who is otherwise incompetent to take his
decision in this connection.
2. The Court laid down certain guidelines relating to this until the legislation enacts a
law in this regard:
(1) A decision has to be taken to discontinue life sustaining system either by
parents, spouse or either close relative or in absence of any of them, such
decision can be taken by a person or body of persons acting as next friend
(KEM hospital in this case).
(2) An application for withdrawal of support has to be made by the next friend to
the High Court concerned.
(3) The Chief Justice of the High Court should constitute a bench of two judges to
decide whether the life sustaining systems should be withdrawn or not.
(4) The High Court should constitute Medical Committee which should have
preferably a psychiatrist, a neurologist and a physician.
(5) They should prepare a report in detail containing the particulars of the hospital
and care history of the patient and submit it to the bench of the High Court.
3. If it is done without the procedure laid above, it would be punishable under S. 302,
304 or 306 because prior approval of High Court is required before withdrawal of
such system.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 31

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

10. ABETMENT/ ATTEMPT OF SUICIDE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

10.1 DATA ANALYSIS ON ATTEMPT TO SUICIDE

 Youths (18-30 years) and lower middle-aged people (30-45 years) were the prime
groups taking recourse to the path of suicides. Around 34.1 per cent were youths in
the age group of 18-30 years and 32.2 per cent were middle-aged persons in the age
group of 30-45 years of the total suicide victims. Senior citizens have accounted for
7.4 per cent of the total victims.

 Social and economic causes have led most of the males to commit suicides, whereas
emotional and personal causes have mainly driven females to end their lives.70

70
Ibid.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 32

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

 The overall male: female ratio of suicide victims for the year 2014 was 60:40;
however, the proportion of boys: girls suicide victims (up to 14 years of age) was
52:48, i.e., almost equal number of young girls have committed suicide as their male
counterparts.

 While approximately one million people die by suicide worldwide71, 15 suicides took
place every one hour during 2013.

71
International Association for Suicide Prevention

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 33

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

 Causes other than social and personal constitute 33.2 per cent of the total suicide
cases.

 Andhra Pradesh has the maximum number of suicide cases caused by “other reasons”,
followed by Karnataka. Among other big states are Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 34

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

Maharashtra.

 There was a fall in the suicides by home-makers from 25,058 in 2010 to 20,148 in
2014. The suicides by home-makers constituted 15.3 per cent of total suicides in
2014.

 Most of the suicides by farmer were committed due to their indebtedness and
bankruptcy.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 35

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

10.2 DATA ANALYSIS ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

 Abetment of suicide of women - Data on abetment of suicide of women was collected
separately for the first time in 2014. A total of 3,734 cases of abetment of suicides of
women were reported during the year.
 Abetments of suicide of women- A total of 4,060 cases of abetment of suicide of
women were registered during the year 2015, showing an increase of 8.7% (from
3,734 cases in 2014 to 4,060 cases in 2015). Maximum such cases were registered in
Maharashtra (702 cases) followed by Telangana (590 cases) and Madhya Pradesh
(577 cases) during 2015.
 Abetment to Suicide of Child (Sec. 305 IPC): A total of 51 cases of ‘abetment to
suicide’ of children were registered during the year 2015 as compared to 56 cases in
the year 2014 showing a decline of 8.9% during 2015. Crime rate was negligible at all
India level under this head with Tripura and Chhattisgarh (0.1 each).

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 36

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

11. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The quantum of punishment and the interpretation in particular circumstance may vary from
country to country but abetment to Suicide remains an offence in almost every country. A
comparative analysis shows the different laws existing in different countries and the
legislations backing the law as under:

11.1 LEGISLATIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

 AUSTRALIA
It is a crime to counsel, incite, or aid and abet another in attempting to commit suicide, and
the law explicitly allows any person to use "such force as may reasonably be necessary" to
prevent another from committing suicide.

 BHUTAN
Under Bhutanese law, the act of committing suicide is itself not illegal, but abetting a suicide
is regarded as a crime.

 CANADA
Suicide is no longer a crime in Canada as it was removed from the Criminal Code of Canada
in 1972 by the Parliament of Canada. But everyone who (a) Counsels a person to commit
suicide, or (b) Aids or abets a person to commit suicide, Whether suicide ensues or not, is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen
years.

 ENGLAND AND WALES

The Suicide Act, 1961 has decriminalized suicide in England. However, Section 2(1) of the
Act states that “A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or any
attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.”

 IRELAND
Attempted suicide is not a criminal offence in Ireland and, under Irish law, self-harm is not
generally seen as a form of attempted suicide. It was decriminalized in 1993.Assisted suicide
and euthanasia are, however, illegal. This is currently being challenged at the High Court, as
of December 2012. As of 2014 assisted suicide remains illegal in Ireland.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 37

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

 NETHERLANDS

In the Netherlands, being present and giving moral support during someone's suicide is not a
crime; neither is supplying general information on suicide techniques. However, it is a crime
to participate in the preparation for or execution of a suicide, including supplying lethal
means or instruction in their use.

 NEW ZEALAND
As with many other western societies, New Zealand currently has no laws against suicide in
itself, as a personal and unassisted act. However, as with comparable societies, there are still
legislative sanctions against 'assisting or abetting' the suicides of others, under Section 179 of
the Crimes Act 1961.

 RUSSIA
According to Article 110 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Inciting someone
to suicide by threats, cruel treatment, or systematic humiliation is punishable by up to 5 years
in prison.

 SCOTLAND
Assisting a suicide in Scotland can in some circumstances constitute murder or culpable
homicide.

 SINGAPORE
In Singapore, attempted suicide, abetment of suicide, and abetment of attempted suicide are
criminal acts. Clause 17(1) of the Advance Medical Directive Bill states that nothing in the
Act "shall authorize an act that causes or accelerates death as distinct from an act that permits
the dying process to take its natural course". Clause 17(2) of the Bill declares that "nothing in
this Act shall condone, authorize or approve abetment of suicide, mercy killing or
euthanasia". Abetment of suicide, mercy killing and euthanasia remains criminal offences
punishable under the Penal Code.

 UNITED STATES
By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but
every state had laws declaring it to be a felony to aid, advice or encourage another person to
commit suicide. The typical statute reads: "Every person who deliberately aids, or advices, or
encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 38

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

There are at least twelve states in United States which have enacted legislation dealing with
aiding, abetting, and advising suicide. Florida, Kansas, Missouri, and Washington specify
that the felony is manslaughter, whereby aid, advice or encourage another person to commit
suicide has been held as a felony. Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin do not label the aiding and abetting as either a felony or as manslaughter, but
merely prescribe a prison term ranging from 7 to 15 years for aiding or abetting a person to
commit suicide. New York classifies causing or aiding another to commit suicide as
manslaughter. It also provides a lesser penalty if the suicide is not successful. Only North
Dakota and Oklahoma specifically provide that furnishing the weapon or poison is aiding and
abetting.

11.2 INTERNATIONAL CASES

The criminality of the actual suicide is incidental in determining the liability of the aider,
abettor, and adviser, as long as a causal connection can be established between the incitement
and the death.72

The court stated that even if the defendant had not actually furnished the Poison but was
present at the time it was taken and urged the deceased to commit suicide, this would also
constitute murder.73

The Michigan Supreme Court acknowledged that suicide was not a crime in that jurisdiction,
but nevertheless affirmed a conviction for murder by poison against an individual who mixed
the poison and placed it within the reach of the suicide.74

The courts of Massachusetts in Commonwealth v. Bowen75, the courts of Tennessee in

Turner v. State76, and the courts of South Carolina in State v. Jones77, have also held that the
aider and abettor is guilty of murder in his own right, reasoning, inter alia, that the consent of
the victim is no excuse.

72
Schulman, Suicide and Suicide Prevention: A Legal Analysis, 54 A.B.A. J. 855, 859 (1968).
73
Blackburn v. State.
74
People v. Roberts.
75
513 Mass. 356 (1816).
76
6119 Tenn. 663, 108 S.W. 1139 (1908).
77
786 S.C. 17, 67 S.E. 160 (1910).

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 39

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

12. SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

12.1 SUGGESTIONS
The current definition of Abetment falls short. The section covers abetment by way of aid,
instigation and conspiracy, but there are instances where the actions of the person do not
strictly fall in these three categories but pressurize a person to commit suicide. The following
instance can be considered for the study of the suggestion:

RUCHIKA GIRHOTRA CASE78

This case involves the molestation of 14-year-old Ruchika Girhotra in 1990 by the Inspector
General of Police Mr. Shambu (S.P.S. Rathore) in Haryana, India. After she made a
complaint, the victim, her family, and her friends were systematically harassed by the police
leading to her eventual suicide. On 22 December 2009, after 19 years, 40 adjournments, and
more than 400 hearings, the court finally pronounced Rathore guilty under Section 354 IPC
(molestation) and sentenced him to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000.

Since, this case falls in neither of any of the three categories under section 107, IPC; the
accused was convicted under section 354 for the offence of molestation and not under section
306 for abetting of suicide.

Going on the facts, the accused had created such circumstances that the victim was left with
no other option, but to commit suicide.

Thus the court should not be strictly restricted to the language of the provisions but also it
should apply its judicial mind in dealing with such cases.

Moreover, the provision should be amended so as to include all other cases not falling in any
of the above mentioned three categories.

It is also important to note that abetment to suicide is a cognizable, non-bailable and non-
compoundable offence. This means that the person named in the Suicide Note is implicated
in a manner which leaves him/her with no other alternative than to be harassed by the
Police/Investigating Authorities or else suffer pre charge/pre-trial incarceration. Also there is
a possibility of opening up floodgates of corruption by the Investigating officer who may try
to make money in the guise of investigation.

78
SPS Rathore v. CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 2126 Of 2010.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 40

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

While proper investigation and participation in investigation by persons who may be

suspected to be involved (including the person named in a suicide note) is crucial in the
investigative process, considering the circumstances and reasons leading to such suicides, the
persons named should not unnecessarily go through incarceration. It is suggested that the
same can be taken care of by amending the current provisions of abetment and making the
offence bailable instead of non-bailable and thereby not only facilitating smoother
investigation but also reducing the burden on courts and prevent unnecessary harassment or
running for Anticipatory Bail.

It is further suggested that investigation of a suicide case be conducted with the mandatory
assistance of a qualified forensic psychologist which would ensure that the right cause of
suicide (with and without the aid of Suicide note) is detected at the earliest.79

12.2 CONCLUSION
The framers of the law, while enacting the legislations, were well versed with the
circumstances that may sprout out of emerging patterns of the changing society that they have
tried to include every possible aspect that may be essential to deal with the offences of
different kinds and provided for punishments, thereof.
With the changing time, pattern of the society is changing vastly, calling for new and
amended laws and provisions, as already enacted laws and legislations are falling short of the
purpose for which they were enacted. Over a period of time, the ways of commission of
offences have changed in such a way that they have gone beyond the ambit of the enacted
provisions. There arises need for such laws that does not restrict the judgments to mere
pigeon hole patterns of the criminal laws. Each case should be decided on its own merits
keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of such case so that the justice is administered in
its true sense.

In today’s emerging society, people face many problems relating to their homes or
workplaces, and few people, who are unable to deal with such pressures tends to end up there
life and thus, suicides are becoming very common. Moreover, along with an increase in the
number of suicidal cases, there has been a steady rise in cases of Abetment of suicide, be it a
case of abetment by instigating or by aiding the victim in committing suicide. The accused
can easily defeat the penal provisions dealing with such offence as the ambit of the provision
is limited to three categories, only.

79
International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies :ISSN:2348-8212:Volume 4 Issue 1.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 41

 A PROJECT REPORT ON ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

Thus, there is a dire need to amend the provisions dealing with the offence of abetment, in
such a way that the criminals are not able to bypass the legislations and mend the cases
suiting their own desires and escape the punishments. Also, the laws are needed to be
interpreted not strictly in a confined manner but according to the facts and circumstances of
each case, so that justice prevails.

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES Page 42