The crime of suicide is explained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and provides for its punishment

also. Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code defines Abetment of suicide.—if any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of a
maximum ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Term abetment has been defined
under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is as hereunder:

When a person firstly- 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 aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 

Abetment of attempt to commit suicide is outside the purview of section 306 and it is punishable
under section 309 read with section 107, IPC. When the suicide is committed then only the
liability arises for abetment. In accordance with the definition of ‘abetment’ given in section 107
of the Indian Penal Code, the offence of abetment to suicide must be constituted. There must be
instigation, or engaging in conspiracy, or assistance in the commission of the offence. To convict
a person under Section 305 or 306, IPC, there has to be a specific presence of intention (mens
rea) to commit the offence and the accused actually made a positive move towards influencing
the victim to take his or her own life. To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the
accused to aid, instigate, or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary.

Case Laws

1. In Vedprakash v. State of M. P.1 the accused persons intimidated and goaded the
deceased for repayment of loan. The deceased committed suicide soon thereafter, it was
held that this did not amount to abetment to commit suicide, and no case under Section
306/34 was made out. The word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke,
incite, urge or encourage doing an act. In the present case none of the accused goaded or
urged forward, provoked, incited or urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide.
They merely goaded him to refund or repay the amount advanced by them to him. They
never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. On the other hand they wanted

1
1995 CriLJ 893
 the loan advanced by them to the deceased to be repaid by him. For the said purpose it
was at least needed, if not essential, that deceased should live.
2. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State2 the SC dealt with the dictionary
meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be
an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.  Each
person's suicidality 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.
3. In the case of Jorubhai Amrubhai Varu v. State of Gujarat 3, Gujarat High Court held
that in accordance with the ingredients of Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 the act of
demanding the repayment of money would not bring a case within the meaning of
Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. Deceased had borrowed money from the present
applicant and the applicant was often demanding repayment along with interest and the
husband of the complainant could not make arrangements of the money and remained
under tension. Further, it was alleged that the applicant used to often threaten him on
phone for the money and had instigated the complainant husband to commit suicide.
Bench referred the Supreme Court decision in M. Mohan v. State4, with regard to the
ingredients of Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 and stated that the act of demanding
the repayment of money would not bring a case within the meaning of Section 306 of the
Penal Code, 1860. There would not be any mens rea of the applicant as he would not be
benefitted from the act of suicide of the deceased and thus prima facie the allegation in
the FIR taken at its face value do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
4. In the case of Amit vs State of Maharashtra, an application was filed for quashing a
FIR for sec 306 of IPC. A person committed suicide and in his suicide note it was written
that because of outstanding loan installments, the loan giver finance company was
insisting him to make payment and he was under mental stress because of this. The
opponents contended that he was only a victim of circumstances. The court quashed the

2
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2009
3
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 9538 of 2020
4
(2011) 3 SCC 626
 FIR saying, a person cannot be made to face trial for doing his duty and he had no
intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
5. Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of M.P.5 The learned Judge of this Court while
dealing with the situation of the borrower and creditor wherein the borrower has
committed suicide, held as under: Any dialogue taking place in that regard cannot be
regarded as an abetment to bring the offence under essential feature of Section 306, IPC
6. Similarly in the recent decision of this Court reported in Prakashchand v. State of
M.P.6, it was held that "demand of due loan from the deceased who committed suicide
does not amount abetment to commit suicide and in that case this charge has been
quashed."
7. If a person has demanded his money back from the deceased, then it cannot be said that
the accused had in any manner abetted the deceased to commit suicide- Motilal vs The
State Of M.P.7
8. In Vishnu Prasad v. State of M.P.8 and Madiya alias Mahadev v. State of M.P9 it was
held that "mere demand of loan amount from the deceased does not amount the
instigation or commission of the suicide by the deceased."
9. In the case of Ramesh Banshkaar & Manju Banshkaar Vs The State Of Madhya
Pradesh10 deceased Maniklal Kol had taken a loan from revisionist/Ramesh Banshkaar.
For repayment of the loan, revisionist Ramesh Banshkaar had taken away his ATM card
and Bank pass-book from deceased Maniklal. He used to take away entire pension of the
deceased in the sum of Rs.9,000/- by way of interest on the loan. The deceased took loan
of Rs.1 lac from Sihora Branch of State Bank of India and had repaid the loan; however,
the revisionist did not issue any written receipt of the repayment of the loan. The
revisionist/accused used to charge interest @ 20% per month than 10 % per month and
thereafter 6% per month from the deceased. He used to deduct commission on the
amount repaid. If in any month deceased Maniklal Kol defaulted of interest, he used to
come to the house of the deceased and threatened him that he would beaten him up and
5
2003 (1) MPWN 34.
6
2007 (1) MPWN 20
7
Cr.A. No.689/1999
8
2005 (2) MPWN 274
9
2006 (1) MPLJ 583 : 2006 Cri LJ 1963
10
CRR-1677-2015
 even if the deceased and his wife died, he would recover the loan from selling his house.
Feeling trapped by the applicant and seeing no way out of the trap, the deceased Maniklal
Kol and his wife Ushabai committed suicide. In the case at hand, it has been established
prima facie that the deceased had taken loan from the revisionist/accused and he was
pressurizing and threatening the deceased for returning the amount, which caused severe
mental stress to the deceased and his wife. As a result of which, they committed suicide
by hanging. However, it is clear that the applicant had no intention of instigating or
goading deceased to commit suicide, for the simple reason that with the suicide of the
deceased, his chances of extracting further amount would practically vanish, in spite of
the threat issued by him to recover the same by selling the house of the deceased. The
revisionist could not have conceivably foreseen that a demand or even coercion practiced
by him upon the deceased, would lead to suicide of the deceased. Even if it is presumed
to be true that the revisionist was behaving like a loan-shark, it cannot be said that the
deceased was bereft of any options. He could simply refuse to pay the loan amount and
could have lodged an FIR against the revisionist if he felt aggrieved by his conduct. Even
if the circumstances allegedly created by revisionist are held to be true. It cannot be said
that he had created such a situation for the deceased that he was left with no option but to
commit suicide. The applicant had no reason to conceive nexus between his action and
the result that eventually ensued.
10. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh11 that: 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.
11. In the case of Paramjeetsingh Chawala vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 12 deceased
Jagdish had borrowed a loan from the applicant/accused Paramjeetsingh and he was
paying the loan in installment. Jagdish had committed suicide. In his suicidal note he
stated that because of repeated demand of money by the accused Paramjeetsingh he had
committed suicide. The court said the only demand of the loan amount does not itself
prove the fact of instigation to the deceased for commission of the suicide, therefore, on

11
2010 Cr.L.J. 2110 SC
12
2007 CriLJ 3343
the basis of that the applicant/accused cannot be charged for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the IPC.