Abetment of Suicide under BNS: Sections 107 & 108 Explained

India records one of the highest absolute suicide counts in the world. According to the National Crime Records Bureau’s Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India (ADSI) 2023 report, 1,71,418 people died by suicide in 2023 — a rate of 12.3 per lakh of population. Behind a share of those deaths lies a criminal-law question the courts have wrestled with for three decades: when does another person’s cruelty, taunting or instigation cross the line into abetment of suicide?

Since 1 July 2024, that question is answered by a new statute. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) has replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and abetment of suicide under BNS is now governed by Sections 107 and 108 (corresponding to the old Sections 305 and 306 IPC).

SPONSORED

This article explains what abetment of suicide means under the BNS, sets it side by side with the IPC, distils the essential ingredients the prosecution must prove, and traces the two great lines of case law flowing out of the Constitution Bench decision in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab — the ingredients chain up to Gurcharan Singh (2020), and the euthanasia / “death with dignity” chain running through Aruna Shanbaug, Common Cause and Harish Rana.

What does “abetment” mean under the BNS?

Abetment of suicide is a species of the wider offence of abetment, so the starting point is the definition of abetment itself. Section 45 of the BNS (carrying forward Section 107 of the old IPC) says a person “abets the doing of a thing” in one of three ways:

• First — by instigation: instigating any person to do that thing;
• Secondly — by conspiracy: engaging with others in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing, where an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of it;
• Thirdly — by intentional aid: intentionally aiding, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Section 46 of the BNS defines the “abettor”. In an abetment-of-suicide case, the “thing” abetted is the deceased’s own act of taking their life. Because suicide itself is no longer an offence, the criminality attaches only to the abettor — and, as we will see, the courts insist on a high threshold of intention before a person can be branded one.

Abetment of Suicide under BNS: Sections 107 and 108

Section 108 BNS — Abetment of suicide (the general offence)

Section 108, BNS: “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.”

• Punishment: imprisonment up to 10 years, and fine.
• Classification: cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, triable by the Court of Session.
• Direct successor to Section 306 IPC, unchanged in substance.

Section 107 BNS — Abetment of suicide of a child or person of unsound mind

Section 107, BNS: “If any person under eighteen years of age, any person with mental illness, any delirious person 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.”

• Punishment: death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to 10 years, and fine — far graver, because the victim is legally incapable of a voluntary, informed decision to end their life.
• Successor to Section 305 IPC.

One quiet but important modernisation: old Section 305 IPC spoke of “any insane person… any idiot.” Section 107 BNS replaces that with “any person with mental illness”, aligning the penal code with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

IPC vs BNS: what changed, and what stayed the same

For most purposes the offence has been carried over intact — same conduct, same punishment, only renumbered. The real changes are at the edges: attempted suicide, and a brand-new provision.

1. General “attempt to suicide” has no successor. Old Section 309 IPC is not re-enacted — the conduct is effectively decriminalised, completing a shift already begun by Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (a person who attempts suicide “shall be presumed… to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished”).

2. A new, narrow attempt provision — Section 226 BNS:

“Whoever attempts to commit suicide with the intent to compel or restrain any public servant from discharging his official duty shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.”

This targets coercive hunger strikes or self-harm threats aimed at a public servant — a new provision with no direct IPC equivalent, and one that introduces community service as a formal punishment.

The essential ingredients of abetment of suicide

Renumbering aside, the heart of this offence is judge-made, and because the BNS carries it forward unchanged, this pre-BNS case law continues to govern Section 108. The prosecution must establish: (1) an act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid; (2) a clear mens rea; and (3) a proximate “live link” between that act and the suicide.

• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 — the fountainhead: “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’.” And: “a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
• Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 — instigation need not be in express words; a “reasonable certainty to incite the consequence” may be spelt out; no straitjacket formula.
• S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 — “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person… Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained,” requiring “a clear mens rea.”
• Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 — harassment “without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence” will not sustain a conviction.
• M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 — reinforced the proximate / “live link” requirement.
• Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 — where the accused actively tarnishes the self-esteem of the victim, abetment may be made out; bare harassment remains insufficient.
• Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2020 SC 4714 : [2020] 8 SCR 741 : 2020 INSC 570 — the modern anchor: “the ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous,” and there must be “an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide.”

The law keeps tightening (2024):

• Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 767 — abetment requires “direct and alarming encouragement or incitement”; the Court distinguished “sentimental relations” (spouse / parent–child / siblings) from “official relations” (workplace) — a superior’s abusive language, without intent to instigate, is not abetment.
• Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 156 : [2024] 3 SCR 329 — restated the two-limb test (positive act + intention).
• Prabhu v. State (decided 30 January 2024) — “Broken relationships and heartbreaks are part of everyday life”; a break-up is not abetment.

The constitutional journey: is there a “right to die”?

Running parallel is the constitutional debate that begins the “landmark chain” and connects abetment to euthanasia — does Article 21’s “right to life” contain a “right to die”?

• Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay HC, 1986; 1987 Cri LJ 743) — struck down Section 309 IPC as violative of Articles 14 and 21.
• P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394 — a two-judge Bench (Hansaria and R.M. Sahai, JJ.) held Section 309 IPC unconstitutional, but kept abetment separate: “self-killing is conceptually different from abetting others to kill themselves.”
• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648 — the turning point. A five-judge Constitution Bench (J.S. Verma, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, Faizan Uddin, G.T. Nanavati, JJ.) overruled P. Rathinam, held Article 21 does not include a “right to die”, and upheld both Section 309 and Section 306 IPC. Litigation then shifted from whether the offence is valid to what it requires.

The euthanasia connection

Here Gian Kaur becomes the hinge. Though it denied any “right to die”, it planted the seed of India’s passive euthanasia jurisprudence:

“The ‘right to life’ including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. But the ‘right to die’ with dignity at the end of life is not to be confused or equated with the ‘right to die’ an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life.”

Crucially, Gian Kaur did not legalise euthanasia — it merely referred to Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland and said any such change could come “only by legislation.” The plant grew in the cases that followed:

• Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 — a two-judge Bench (Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.) permitted passive euthanasia under safeguards then requiring High Court supervision; distinguished passive (a lawful omission) from active (a crime) euthanasia; relied on Gian Kaur.
• Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 — a five-judge Bench (CJI Dipak Misra, with Sikri, Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.), on 9 March 2018, made the “right to die with dignity” a fundamental right under Article 21, held passive euthanasia legal even without legislation, and recognised the “living will” / advance directive.
• The January 2023 simplification — by order dated 24 January 2023 (2023 SCC OnLine SC 99), a five-judge Bench headed by K.M. Joseph, J. streamlined the procedure: the JMFC countersignature was removed (now attestation before two witnesses + a notary or gazetted officer), the secondary medical board is now hospital-constituted, a 48-hour decision timeline was fixed, and magisterial approval for withdrawal was eliminated.

The latest chapter — Harish Rana (2024–2026). How far does passive euthanasia stretch when a patient breathes on his own and depends only on a feeding tube? Harish Rana — bedridden in a permanent vegetative state for over a decade after a fall — became the test case. In Harish Rana v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 4927/2024, 2 July 2024), the Delhi High Court refused the family’s plea, reasoning that he was breathing without a ventilator and so was not on “life support” — withdrawing his feeding tube would amount to impermissible starvation. On 11 March 2026 the Supreme Court reversed that view (Harish Rana v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 222, per Pardiwala and Viswanathan, JJ.), holding that clinically assisted nutrition and hydration delivered through a surgically-placed (PEG) feeding tube is itself “medical treatment” that may be withdrawn from a patient in irreversible PVS — applying the best-interests test and the medical-board procedure mandated by Common Cause. It is the first case in India to permit withdrawal of a feeding tube rather than a ventilator; Rana died at AIIMS on 24 March 2026, the first person in India to die under a court-sanctioned passive-euthanasia order. The ruling closes the earlier “ventilator-only” reading of Common Cause.

Why this matters for abetment of suicide

In Aruna Shanbaug, the Court reasoned that withdrawing life support is an omission, not a positive act. Because abetment demands a positive, intentional act, a doctor or family member who lawfully withdraws treatment following the mandated procedure does not commit abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC, now Section 108 BNS). After Harish Rana (2026), that protected “omission” extends even to withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition, provided the Common Cause safeguards are followed. Active euthanasia, by contrast, remains culpable homicide.

Precision note: the euthanasia judgments were decided under the IPC and speak of Sections 306/309; the read-across to Sections 108/226 BNS is a mapping of successor provisions — the Court itself did not use BNS numbering.

Presumptions: the married woman and the dowry death

• Section 117 BSA (old Section 113A Evidence Act) — where a woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage and cruelty by the husband/relatives is shown, the court “may presume” abetment. Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (1990) is the classic illustration.
• Section 118 BSA (old Section 113B) — in a dowry death, where cruelty for dowry is shown “soon before her death”, the court “shall presume” the accused caused it (Section 80 BNS).

Section 117 is discretionary and hinges on a seven-year window; Section 118 is mandatory and hinges on “soon before her death.” In practice, Section 85 BNS (cruelty) and Section 108 BNS (abetment) are often charged together, with Section 117 BSA the evidentiary bridge.

How courts approach Section 108 cases: the defence perspective

• Was there a positive, proximate act? (Amalendu Pal; S.S. Chheena)
• Is mens rea “visible and conspicuous”? It cannot be assumed from the suicide alone (Gurcharan Singh).
• Words in anger are not instigation (Ramesh Kumar).
• Nature of the relationship matters — workplace friction is not the same as an intimate/family bond (Nipun Aneja).
• A suicide note is not a conviction — instigation and intent must still be proved.
• Courts must be cautious before sustaining the charge (Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 INSC 1071).

Conclusion

Under the BNS, abetment of suicide continues almost exactly as under the IPC — Section 108 (up to 10 years + fine) and Section 107 (up to death). What changed sits around the offence: the general offence of attempting suicide has disappeared (survived only by the narrow Section 226), completing India’s move to treat the suicidal person as needing care, not punishment. And Gian Kaur’s twin legacies remain the compass — the ingredients chain (Ramesh Kumar → S.S. Chheena → Gurcharan Singh → Nipun Aneja) keeping the offence bounded by mens rea and a proximate act, and the death-with-dignity chain (Aruna Shanbaug → Common Cause → Harish Rana) marking the outer edge of what Section 108 can reach.

Frequently asked questions

1. Is abetment of suicide a bailable offence under the BNS?
No — Section 108 is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by the Court of Session.

2. What is the punishment for abetment of suicide under the BNS?
Section 108: up to 10 years + fine. Section 107 (child / person with mental illness): up to death or life imprisonment.

3. Is attempting suicide still a crime under the BNS?
Generally no — the BNS drops Section 309 IPC, and Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 bars punishment. Only Section 226 BNS (coercing a public servant) survives.

4. What is the difference between Section 107 and Section 108 BNS?
Section 108 is the general provision; Section 107 applies where the victim is under 18, a person with mental illness, delirious or intoxicated, and carries a much higher maximum penalty (up to death).

5. Is euthanasia legal in India, and is it abetment of suicide?
Passive euthanasia (following the Supreme Court’s safeguards) is legal and not abetment — it is a lawful omission. Active euthanasia remains culpable homicide. See Aruna Shanbaug (2011), Common Cause (2018, as modified in January 2023) and Harish Rana (2026 INSC 222), in which the Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of a feeding tube.

6. Can a person be convicted of abetment of suicide only on the basis of a suicide note?
No — a positive act of instigation and a clear intention, proximate to the death, must still be proved (Gurcharan Singh; S.S. Chheena).

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Statutory references are to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as in force on 1 July 2024. If you or someone you know is in distress, please reach out to the Tele-MANAS national mental-health helpline (14416) or a qualified professional.