This article is written by Manya Manjari, a student at the Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, mentions the term for punishment for abetting suicide. This article will look at abetment to suicide as an offence, the essentials, the sentence for the abettor, and the essential case laws laid down by the statutes. This article also goes on to explain the rights the accused has along with the details of the abetment of suicide. 

This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar.​​ 

Introduction

Suicide, in simple words, is an act by which an individual ends their own life. Suicide is often committed by people as a way to escape their suffering and pain. Suicide is not defined by the Indian Penal Code 1860, but the Supreme Court in the case of M Mohan v. State (2011), stated that suicide is “sui”- meaning ‘self’ and “cide”- meaning ‘kill,’ hence, self-killing. Suicide is not always done for self-care; it is often instigated or encouraged by someone else. When suicide is initiated with a mala fide intention, then it becomes an even more grave offence.

Abetment, as per Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code  (IPC), 1860, refers to the act of deliberately encouraging someone to do something. For example, X would be liable for abetment if person X instigated or encouraged Y to kill Z. Section 306 of the IPC deals with the punishment for abetting the suicide of a person. Abetment is referred to as “incomplete crimes” or “inchoate crimes/offences” because the offender may have the necessary “mens rea” for committing a crime and may take action to commit a crime. Still, he may be uncertain whether the anticipated consequence will be produced, i.e., there may not be a complete or desired “actus reus.”

Offence defined under Section 306 IPC- Abetment of suicide 

Section 306 of the IPC states that “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.”

Suicide has not been defined in any statute, but the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), in its yearly report, ‘Accidental Deaths and Suicide in India,’ has defined suicide and laid out its essentials as an “intentional ending of life.” The most significant element of suicide are-

(i) it must be a non-natural death, 

(ii) the desire to die must come from within the individual, and 

(iii) the ending of life must be backed by a reason.

So, any person who encourages, assists, or abets another person’s suicide is punished under Section 306 of the IPC. The offence is punishable with a term exceeding ten years in prison, a fine, or both.  

Meaning of abetment

Abetment is the active and deliberate support of an offender by another person.

In Section 107 of the IPC, abetment has been defined as: 

“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; or 

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

In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), the word ‘abet’ is defined as follows: 

“‘To abet’ is defined as to aid; to assist or to give aid; to command, to procure, or to counsel; to countenance; to encourage, counsel, induce, or assist; to encourage or to set another on to commit.”

Section 108 defines an abettor as: 

“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.”

So, an abettor is someone who instigates, encourages, or pushes the person to such an extent that the other person kills themselves or ends their life.

Essentials of the offence under Section 306 IPC punishment 

The act of abetment is a crime determined by the purpose of the person who abets, not by the act committed by the person he abets. In cases of abetment, one of the essentials must be fulfilled to bring about an action for abetment. These can also be seen as types of abetment or ways a person can be instigated. 

Mens rea

As mentioned in the above act, the accused must have had criminal intent when carrying out the abetment. To aid someone in committing suicide, there must be actual criminal intent. The intention could have been in any of the following forms:

1. The defendant may have purposefully encouraged another person to kill himself. Intentional incitement could have been in the form of verbal threats, provocation, persuading, commanding or ordering, etc.
2. The defendant may have been a part of a criminal conspiracy, the main goal of which had to be to influence another person to kill themselves.
3. Intentional helping might take the form of encouraging someone to commit suicide through acts or omissions.

Commission 

The accused’s aiding and abetting must be of such a character that the aiding and abetting person ends their life. The deceased must have successfully committed suicide, taking his own life, for criminal liability to arise under Section 306 of the IPC. Under this Section, the accused is not criminally liable for the abetted person’s unsuccessful suicide attempt. 

A direct relation between the abetment and the commission

The alleged aiding and abetting by the accused that caused the deceased to commit suicide must be direct in nature.  The act of the accused, (aiding and abetting), and the deceased’s intention to commit suicide must be directly related. Abetment by a person must arise when the accused creates a situation in which the victim has no choice but to commit suicide.  If the relationship is too weak or remote, the person cannot be held guilty of the crime of aiding suicide.

Instigation 

The definition of “instigate”  is “to provoke, excite, push on, or bring about by persuasion.” Instigating is a person’s active participation in motivating another person to take action. Instigation does not require only consent or authorization. It means stimulating, agitating, or urging someone to do an extreme or undesirable activity. Instigation can also be done by obtaining approval or misrepresenting material facts about any situation or person. In the case of Sati, women were pushed on and persuaded to die along with their husbands on the funeral pyre. 

For example, if person X goes and asks person Y to die, and as a consequence, Y kills himself, then X will not be liable for it. Instigation must be done with mens rea.

Another instance can be when A doesn’t turn into an instigator or abettor by approval just because he did not actively try to stop B from killing C after telling him that he intended to do so.

In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and others (1995), the appellant was accused of contravening Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code because, during the argument, the appellant told the victim to go ahead and commit suicide. The Supreme Court believed that the accused’s simple command to “go and die” was not prima facie sufficient to cause the deceased to commit suicide. 

The Supreme Court, in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002), ruled that the word “instigate” means to urge or inspire someone to do an extreme or undesirable action.

The people who accompanied a lady as she prepared to be a sati on her husband’s funeral pyre while chanting “Rama, Rama” were found guilty of aiding by encouraging the woman to commit suicide in the case of Queen v. Mohit Kumar Mukherjee (1871).

Conspiracy

Engaging in a plot to commit an offence with one or more other people is also a type of abetment. Abetment by conspiracy is a separate offence from conspiracy. Where an agreement to commit an offence is concerned, the difference between an offence of abetment by conspiracy and an act of criminal conspiracy is that simple consent is not needed for abetment by conspiracy. In order to carry out the conspiracy and achieve the goal of the plot, an unlawful act or omission must be committed.

The essentials of abetment by conspiracy are:

1. The abettor assists with a plan with one or more other persons.
2. An act or criminal omission has occurred to promote the conspiracy and carry out the act.
3. The conspiracy benefited significantly in carrying out its plan.

In the case of Saju v. the State of Kerala (2000), the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must establish that the abettor motivated specific conduct, participated in a conspiracy with one or more other people to carry it out, or deliberately assisted the performance of that action by an illegal act or omission to establish abetment through conspiracy.

Aid

Abetment may also be committed through intentional aid, according to the third paragraph of Section 107. It should be noted that intentional aid differs from instigation and conspiracy, in the sense that the offence abetted by intentional aid, must have been committed with malice intention. However, in order for this provision to be applicable, it is essential that: 

1. As per Section 107 which provides the provision where the condition of mens rea must be met. Mens rea is the utmost essential as it forms the basis of abetment by aid to convict any person under this Section.
2. The abettor must have offered useful assistance.
3. The assistance may be given at any time, including before or during the commission of the crime.

For example, if A intentionally procures a bottle of poison for B, which was used by B to kill himself, A would be liable for abetment to suicide by intentional aid. The phrase “intentional aid” used in Section 107 emphasises the idea that just providing assistance does not constitute abetment by assistance if the accused is unaware that an offence is being committed or is being planned. The assistance must have been given or done in such a way that it would not have been possible for any consequence to arise without it.

If someone assists, supplies anything, or otherwise makes it easier for someone else to commit a crime, that person is said to have aided and abetted the crime. The two head constables in Ram Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1965), forcefully removed the husband and wife to the police station on false pretences. One of them sexually assaulted the wife, and the other policeman remained silent. The Supreme Court determined that he was responsible for aiding the rape by keeping silent in those circumstances.

Abetment would not be considered to have occurred simply by being present at the site of bigamous marriage in the absence of any proof of incitement, helping, or planning, as was held in the case of Muthammal v. Marufhatla (1981). 

The Supreme Court ruled in Shri Ram v. State of U.P. (1975) that mere presence does not hold a person responsible for abetment; there must be aid, help, or support for the act in order for it to happen.

Nature of offence under Section 306 IPC 

The actus reus of this offence may be a statement that acts as advice, command, encouragement, enticement, entrapment, inducement, procurement,  incitement, or a request. The abetment is committed when the inducement is stated along with the necessary mens rea. Therefore, it is essential to understand that mens rea is a prerequisite for liability when considering the law about abetment. So, the provision itself assumes an understanding of the conduct and its consequences. The nature of offences under Section 306 of the IPC is the following:

Non-bailable offence

The crime has been classified as a non-bailable offence due to the extreme gravity of the offence. Non-bailable offences are those where the accused is not allowed to be released on bail and is kept either in police or judicial custody. In such instances, an accused person would need to show strong justification to the court in order to be granted bail.

Depending on where the case is in the process, the accused can either request a conventional bail after being detained or, preferably, request an anticipatory bail before being taken into custody. The accused’s past, his place in society, the reason for the crime, the police charge sheet, and other factors will all be taken into account by the court. If the circumstances favour the accused, bail will be granted after considering all pertinent factors.

Non-compoundable offence

Non-compoundable offences cannot be modified; rather, they must be resolved through trial. These are more significant and terrible offences that affect society as a whole rather than simply the victim. Non-compoundable offences are not allowed for settlement by a regular court because they are against public policy. 

The offence under Section 306 of the IPC is non-compoundable, meaning it is not legal to record a compromise between the perpetrator and the victim. Since it is a severe offence, the law mandates that the perpetrator be tried and sentenced to punishment.

Cognisable offence

In the case of cognisable offences, the police have the authority to make an arrest of the suspect without a warrant or a judge’s approval and start an investigation. Such offences often carry a sentence of at least three years and as much as life in prison or the death penalty. 

Abetment to suicide is also listed as a cognizable offence in Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

Offences triable by the sessions court

The charges under Section 306 of the IPC would be sustained and tried at the court of sessions. This is because any offence with a minimum punishment of one year in jail and a maximum of seven years in prison will be tried by the court of sessions. 

Punishment for the offence under Section 306 IPC

Section 306 IPC lays down that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The punishment for Section 306 IPC, which is “abetment to suicide,” is imprisonment for ten years, simple or rigorous, depending upon the facts and scenarios of the case, and a fine or both. 

The Supreme Court reiterated the legal doctrine outlined in its earlier three-judge bench decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) and decided that where the accused, by his actions or ongoing course of action, creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option but to kill themselves, an instigation may be established. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in Daxaben v. State of Gujarat (2022) that aiding suicide is a terrible, severe, and non-compoundable offence that cannot be addressed with a simple settlement, and the accused was punished according to the Section.

The abettor cannot be held accountable when the primary offence is not proven, and the primary criminal is not guilty.  In other words, the claim of abetment only falls if the main charge sustains. The Supreme Court in Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of Assam (1959), stated that the appellant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 165A for aiding the commission of an offence by an official, who was later acquitted, and so it was decided that the appellant’s conviction for aiding was consequently not maintainable. 

It was later decided that it was not appropriate to state that an abettor cannot be punished if the individual simply committing the offence is acquitted in Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, (1967) and the prior judgment was given a diverging view that held the abettor should be made free from any liability just because the individual committing the offence is left free.  

Important case laws 

Smt. Gian Kaur v. The State of Punjab (1969)

Facts

In this case, the constitutionality of Section 306 was challenged. Gian Gaur and her husband, Harbans Singh, were charged with abetting their daughter-in-law in committing suicide. They were both found guilty by the trial court of violating Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. The High Court heard an appeal from the appellant, supported the trial court’s ruling, and changed the sentence from six to three years in jail.

Issue raised 

• Whether Section 306 of the IPC has constitutional validity?

Judgment

Regarding the constitutionality of Section 306, the Supreme Court ruled that while no Indian citizen may be punished for making a suicide attempt, anybody who aids another person in doing so shall be penalised in accordance with the needs of society. So, Section 306 of the IPC was held constitutionally valid, and both appellants were held accountable for aiding in suicide. The judgment in P. Rathinam v. UOI (1994) was overturned by this case.

Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (2009)

Facts 

In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (2009), the deceased shot himself in the head with an authorised weapon. The deceased was allegedly a partner in this appeal with the appellant and two other people, Jahuruddin and Mahavir Prasad, who were all engaged in the real estate industry. The dead committed suicide as a consequence of the problems brought on by these three people; in a suicide letter he left behind, the deceased mentioned that they had engaged in certain financial transactions; as a result, these three people assisted the deceased in his suicide. The trial judge was persuaded that the documents had sufficient evidence to bring charges against all three defendants, and so the case was repealed in the Supreme Court. 

Issues 

• The issue, in this case, was whether mental torture would count as an abetment in case of suicide.

Judgment

The accused must have the intention to instigate, incite, or promote the commission of an offence. Each person has a unique pattern of suicidal behaviour and a unique sense of what constitutes self-respect and self-esteem. Furthermore, no set rule can be applied to all suicide cases; each should be judged based on particular facts and circumstances.

Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab (2016)

Facts

In this case, the deceased, Shinder Kaur, was beaten and sent to her matrimonial home with a demand for twenty thousand rupees in cash by her husband and in-laws. She returned without money because her father was unable to get it. Her father was then informed about her death a day later, and the parents of the deceased accused her husband and her in-laws of harassing her mentally and driving her to kill herself. The case went to the trial court, and the accused was punished with imprisonment for four years and was also fined five thousand rupees. The case was then repealed by the Supreme Court. 

Issues raised

• Whether the accused would be held liable for abetting the suicide of his wife on the failure of procuring the demanded twenty-thousand rupees?
• Whether the accused would be liable for creating a harassing environment at home, which led the deceased to kill herself?

Judgment

The Court determined that the appellant’s conviction under Section 306 of the IPC was invalid because the trial court and the Punjab High Court erred in deciding that the deceased committed suicide because of the conditions in her matrimonial home. The Court stated that there was no evidence of unlawful conduct or overt omission on the part of the appellant when caring for his deceased wife. There is no proof that she experienced harassment from her spouse or in-laws, and neither the testimony of the witnesses nor that of her parents indicates anything to that effect. The Court further declared that the trial court and High Court had found the accused guilty of aiding his wife’s suicide because of unnatural death. As a result, the court overturned the accused’s conviction, and the appeal was successful.

Vitesh Kumar Bhawte and Bhimrao Bhawte v. the State of Chattisgarh (2019)

Facts

In this case, a woman committed suicide after getting rejected by a man for marriage. The man and the woman were supposed to get married, but the man refused, and both families agreed to set up a meeting to clear out the problem, but even after that, the man did not change his decision and clearly refused to marry her. As a result, the woman returned to her house on a false pretext and hanged herself to death. The man was charged for abetting her suicide.

Issue 

The issue raised in this case was whether the man would be liable for abetting the suicide of the woman.

Judgment

The Court held that the man would not be held liable for abetting the woman’s suicide as he merely expressed his choice of not wanting to marry the girl. There was no clear evidence that could prove that the man instigated the act, and while the girl committed suicide, the man was not even present, so the man was acquitted. 

M. Maryson v. State Rep. (2021)

Facts

In this case, the deceased and the appellant worked for the same company and thus were acquaintances. The deceased had asked for the accused’s car to go to Puducherry, and while returning, the car met with an accident. The deceased got the car repaired and returned it to the accused, but there was still some repair work left to be done, so when the deceased was asked to get the car repaired properly, he committed suicide on this pretence. A case was filed against the accused by the mother of the deceased.

Issue 

Whether the accused was liable for abetting suicide was the issue in the case.

Judgment

It was held that there must be active instigation by the other party to encourage suicide, since, in the present case, there was no active role by the accused in abetting the suicide of the deceased, as in the request for car repair, and the suicide was very remote. 

Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Facts 

In this case, the deceased consumed poison in front of the appellant’s home. There was nothing to support the claim that the appellant was still in contact with the dead other than the claim that they were linked. In reality, the statement from police revealed that the deceased was following the appellant, calling her frequently, and proposing marriage while threatening to kill himself if she refused. The appellant had complained about the same, along with her father.

Issues raised 

Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the petition?

Judgment

No one might be found guilty of an offence under Section 306 of the IPC if they did not actively encourage or assist in committing suicide. There must have been an active or direct act that caused the deceased to commit suicide after exhausting all other options. That act must have been intended to put the deceased in a situation where he would commit suicide before proceeding against anyone for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Nothing in the record indicates that the appellant had a relationship with the deceased. There is also no evidence to support the claim that the appellant encouraged the deceased’s suicide. Hence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 

Atul Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2021)

Facts 

In this case, an agreement was made between the petitioner and the deceased to purchase a vintage motorbike; in this transaction, the petitioner paid money to the defendant at the deceased’s request. The petitioner claimed that the antique motorcycle was never delivered, even after the full payment was made in 2012. The petitioner had filed a fake harassment charge against the deceased to have him service his other bikes for free, despite the fact that the motorcycle had been delivered in 2012. He said that although the delivery was made in 2012 to the petitioner’s authorised representative, the necessary transfer paperwork was promised to be signed as soon as he arrived in India. Meanwhile, after a few days, the deceased came to India and committed suicide, blaming the petitioner in the suicide note. 

Issues raised 

• Whether the petitioner made abetted the suicide of the deceased by serving legal notice and filing a complaint under Section 306 of the IPC. 

Judgment

After carefully examining the facts and circumstances of this case, the court decided that it was likely that the dead had been irritated and ended their life as a result. But the petitioner is not responsible for encouraging suicide. As advised by his lawyer, the petitioner had the right to publish a legal notice and file a complaint. The act was very remote to the commission of suicide. Therefore, the petitioner’s decision to file a criminal complaint against the dead cannot be seen as an intentional attempt to encourage or motivate the deceased to kill himself.

Babita v. State of Haryana (2018)

Facts

This case revolved around the granting of bail in the case where the charges were abetment of suicide. In this case, the petitioners were asking for regular bail under the provisions stated in Section 436 of the CrPC. the petitioners were accused of abetting the suicide of the person in question, who was the husband and son-in-law of the accused. And the case was filed by the father of the deceased, who alleged that the wife and mother-in-law had abetted his son to kill himself.

Issue 

The issue raised was whether bail should be granted to the accused.

Judgment

The trial court held that the decision as to whether the accused were guilty would be determined later, in the course of the trial, but bail would be granted to them as there is prima facie no reason as to why the accused should be kept in custody. So, regular bail was granted, but it would be subject to reversal if the accused tried to threaten the complainant in any way. 

Effects of non-dismissal of charges under section 306, IPC

The effects of being charged with any crime can be quite serious. When a person is charged under Section 306 of the IPC, it can have serious repercussions on not just his personal life but also his social life, as it would lead to a tainted reputation and the loss of relationships in every aspect of life and affect his future prospects. 

If anyone is charged under this Section, it is crucial that they have an established criminal lawyer with them to guide them at every step of the way. While some cases can be handled alone, it is important not to categorise this charge as one because it invites serious punishment and strict arrest provisions, giving a slight chance for taking defence on the matter.

How to file/defend your case for IPC 306 offence

Any person, if accused under the charge of Section 306 IPC, must make sure that they do not take matters into their own hands unless they have a clear understanding of the law or are well-read in this field. As the matters in this Section are complicated, it would be in the best of the accused’s interest if they sought help from a professional. 

Cases of such nature can take any course. Sometimes it becomes very tough for the defence to prove the innocence of the accused, so the case must be prepared with all the details. There must be thorough clarity to minimise the chances of errors or confusion.   

What to do if involved in a false abetment of suicide case

False charges can be very dangerous for anyone. Some of the consequences of false accusations for a crime as grave as abetment are:

1. The dissociation of one’s identity, and stigma revolving around the accused at home, social gatherings, and at work. 
2. Alongside that, they can also develop mental and physical ailments and are most likely to suffer from trauma. 
3. Their image gets destroyed everywhere, and many times even after the charges are taken down.

When someone is charged with any case involving abetment, they must be aware of their rights and duties, as this charge is very serious. 

• The person must make sure that primarily they reveal each and every detail of the case to their lawyer so that the lawyer can prepare their strategy and arguments according to the facts.
• The accused should sit and discuss elaborately the laws involved under the charge and get a clear understanding of the provision. 

Rights of the accused

The accused have been given certain rights to give them a chance so that they can also be heard in a court of law. Their rights have been backed by the Constitution of India as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure. Some of the rights of the accused are as follows: 

Right to be informed of the ground of arrest

Every accused has the right to be informed of the grounds on which they are being arrested, this is provided by Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This can only be prevented if there is an arrest made on a matter of national importance, like in any case of the Unlawful Activity Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967 or any terrorist-related activity. The arresting party must make sure that they inform the accused of their rights.

Right to inform relatives of the accused

The relatives of the accused must be informed immediately and given the details of the arrest, that is, the place, date, time, and reason for the arrest, as per Section 50 A of the CrPC. This Section can also include friends other than relatives to make the process more efficient. 

Right to be informed of Bail provisions

According to Section 50(2) of the CrPC, any arrested person has the right to be released on bail if they are arrested in absence of a warrant for an offence. This is different in cases of non-cognizable offence.

Right to be produced before a magistrate in a limited period 

 As per Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 56 of CrPC, a person must not be kept in detention for more than 24 hours. If the time exceeds 24 hours, then it would be regarded as illegal detention. If the detentions somehow extend, they must be in compliance with Section 76 of the CrPC. 

Right to be heard

Whenever someone is arrested, Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and Sections 303 and  41D of the CrPC confer this right on the person to contact their lawyer. This must be done without delay. The arrested person must not be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner of their choice, as this is one of the most important rights that rests with them. The right to be heard can also include the right to legal aid and a fair trial. The government is obligated to provide the accused with free legal aid in case they are not capable of arranging it for themselves. 

Search of an arrested female

Section 51 of the CrPC gives this right to the females who have been arrested that, in the event they have to be searched, they must be searched by a female police officer. The search must be carried out in an acceptable manner. In cases where the search of the house of the female offender is concerned, a male officer can carry out the search, but they cannot search a female offender in any case. 

Right to be examined by a medical practitioner

Under Section 54 of the CrPC, the accused has the right to be examined by a medical practitioner. This can be done at the request of the accused. This right is given to the accused so that they can use it to prove their innocence. 

Right to remain silent

Section 313 (3) of the CrPC gives the accused the right to remain silent during the process of investigation and trial. The principle followed in India is innocent until proven guilty, so the accused can choose to be silent. 

Right against handcuffing

Article 22 of the Indian Constitution gives the accused the right to avoid handcuffs. When a person has to be handcuffed, the police must have a reasonable justification as to whether the person is likely to escape or is a threat to the public. Apart from these reasons, the police must also have an order from the trial court with due permission to handcuff the accused. During the time of arrest, the process should not be mistreated.

Apart from these aforementioned rights, the accused also must receive a receipt for their personal belongings while being arrested, and they are liable to get them back while they are released on bail. 

Attorney-client privilege

According to Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused has an attorney-client privilege with their lawyer. This means that the lawyers are restricted from sharing any details that have been shared by the client with them. The statements made by the accused are secured, and the case must be discussed with clarity to receive the best outcome for the accused. 

Conclusion

Section 306 of the IPC talks about punishment for the abetment of suicide, which occurs when a person kills himself after receiving encouragement or assistance from another person. Only basic categories can be punished under this Section, namely, instigating or assisting in the conduct of suicide and having a direct link between the provocation and the suicide.  In order to prevent criminals from evading the law, tailoring cases to suit their own interests, and escaping punishment, the regulations governing the charge of abetment are this stringent. Still, there is excellent scope for improvement, which could be brought about by widening the scope and including the ways in which the offence is committed.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

Can anticipatory bail be granted in the cases of Section 306 IPC?

The offence under Section 306 IPC is non-bailable. Although anticipatory bail can be granted if a person feels there might be a chance to be framed or falsely accused. Section 438 of the CrPC talks about anticipatory bail. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court will grant the request if it has a valid reason and apprehension to believe that the person might invite frivolous charges.  

Is Section 306 IPC constitutionally valid?

Yes, Section 306 of the IPC is constitutionally valid. Its validity was challenged in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1969), and it was held that anyone who abets a person to kill themselves would be held liable and punished under the same Section as it violates the person’s right to life enshrined in the Constitution.

Where can FIR in the cases of abetment to suicide be filed?

In the case of Section 306 IPC, an FIR can be filed at any police station, and police will either transfer it to the relevant station having jurisdiction over the case or, if it is the same station, they will start the investigation as soon as the FIR is lodged.

Can FIR under Section 306 IPC be quashed on the grounds of entering into a settlement?

No, since the offence under this Section is a non-compoundable offence, the courts cannot quash the FIR on the grounds that the parties entered into a settlement. 

References 

• Indian Penal Code by C.K. Takwani, EBC 2nd Edition.
• BM Gandhi’s Indian Penal Code by K.A Pandey, EBC Fourth Edition
• https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf 
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-306-ipc-case-laws/
• https://primelegal.in/2021/08/26/abetment-of-suicide-court-highlights-necessary-ingredients-of-the-offence-punishable-under-section-306-ipc-high-court-of-delhi/ 
• https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/muthammal-and-ors-vs-maruthathal 
• https://highcourt.cg.gov.in/Afr/courtJudgementandAFR/2019/may/CRR98_10(17.05.19).pdf 

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.