The Supreme Court of India, in Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny v. State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7309 of 2025; decided on 27 October 2025), clarified the legal contours of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court ruled that a person’s refusal to marry cannot, by itself, be construed as “instigation” or abetment to suicide, emphasising that mere emotional distress or disappointment in love does not constitute a criminal offence.
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to distinguishing moral wrongs from criminal liability, reiterating that penal consequences require mens rea (criminal intent) and a direct act of provocation or aid leading to the suicide.
Background of the Case
The case arose from tragic circumstances involving Pardeep Kaur, a young government advocate from Amritsar, who allegedly took her life after her relationship with Yadwinder Singh, also a government advocate, soured over his refusal to marry her.
On 7 November 2016, the deceased’s mother lodged an FIR against Yadwinder Singh under Section 306 IPC, alleging that his betrayal and refusal to marry had driven her daughter to consume poison. The FIR recounted that the accused had previously expressed his intention to marry Pardeep but later backed out due to opposition from his family.
A few days later, the complainant made a supplementary statement under Section 161 CrPC, alleging that Yadwinder had mentally and physically exploited her daughter under the pretext of marriage. The mother further alleged that her daughter had told Yadwinder she would consume poison if he refused to marry her, to which he allegedly replied that he “did not care if she died.”
The police recorded these statements and filed a charge sheet against Yadwinder Singh for abetment of suicide. His petition for quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 17 March 2025, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether refusal to marry, even if it causes emotional distress to the other person, amounts to “instigation” or abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC?
Legal Provisions Involved
Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS) — Abetment of Suicide
“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment… which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
To attract Section 306, two elements must be established:
- There was a suicide.
- The accused abetted that suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC.
Section 107 IPC (Section 45 BNS) — Abetment of a thing
A person abets the doing of a thing who—
- Instigates another to do that thing; or
- Engages in conspiracy for doing that thing; or
- Intentionally aids the doing of that thing.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
1. No Evidence of Direct Instigation
The Supreme Court observed that the mother’s supplementary statement, made after two days, contained significant improvements over the original FIR. Initially, she had alleged only that Yadwinder had refused to marry her daughter. Later, she introduced allegations of mental and physical exploitation and verbal provocation.
The Court held that these subsequent allegations appeared to be afterthoughts, likely made under emotional strain. Even taking the statements at face value, the Court found no evidence of active incitement or instigation by Yadwinder Singh that directly led to the suicide.
2. Relationship and Parental Opposition
The Court noted that both individuals were emotionally involved and had contemplated marriage. However, due to strong opposition from Yadwinder’s family, the marriage did not materialise. The accused was thus caught between personal affection and familial pressure — a situation that, though unfortunate, did not imply criminal intent or incitement.
The Court remarked that a person’s inability or unwillingness to marry—whether due to social, familial, or personal reasons—cannot be treated as abetment of suicide.
3. Refusal to Marry ≠ Instigation
The Bench referred to several precedents, reiterating that “instigation” implies a positive act of provocation, encouragement, or assistance, not mere emotional insensitivity or rejection.
In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, “instigate” was defined as “to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.”
Similarly, in S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Supreme Court held:
“Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.”
Applying these principles, the Court held that a mere refusal to marry cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be seen as an act of instigation.
4. Requirement of Mens Rea (Criminal Intent)
For abetment under Section 306, the prosecution must prove mens rea — a deliberate intention to push the deceased towards suicide.
The Court emphasised that while the deceased might have been emotionally devastated, there was no evidence suggesting that Yadwinder intended or anticipated her suicide as a result of his conduct. Emotional fallout from a failed relationship, though tragic, does not meet the threshold of criminal culpability.
5. Judicial Objectivity and Emotional Neutrality
The Bench acknowledged the emotional dimensions of the case, noting:
“It is possible that she might have felt hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life of a young girl. However, as judges, we cannot let our emotions dictate our legal reasoning.”
The Court cautioned against emotional overreach in criminal law, reaffirming that judicial decisions must rest on evidence and statutory interpretation, not sympathy or moral sentiment.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, observing that continuing the trial would serve no purpose and would amount to a “travesty of justice.”
It accordingly quashed FIR No. 273/2016 and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Court, Amritsar.
The Bench held unequivocally:
“Mere refusal to marry, even if true, by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC.”
Thus, instigation or intentional aid is essential for abetment to be made out.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny v. State of Punjab & Anr. is a reaffirmation of reason over emotion in criminal law. By holding that refusal to marry cannot be treated as abetment to suicide, the Court has clarified that the law punishes deliberate provocation, not human weakness or emotional fallout.
This judgment not only upholds the constitutional value of personal liberty but also ensures that criminal law remains an instrument of justice, not vengeance. It stands as a guiding precedent, reminding society that matters of the heart, however tragic, must not be conflated with matters of crime.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams