Does Humiliation or Pressure Always Amount to Abetment of Suicide?

The question of whether humiliation, pressure, or harassment necessarily constitutes abetment to suicide has troubled courts for decades. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)—now reflected in Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)—penalises abetment of suicide. However, the line between ordinary discord and culpable instigation is often blurred. 

The Supreme Court, in its 2025 judgment in Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., once again examined this vexed issue. The case involved the tragic suicide of a seven-time Member of Parliament, who alleged in his note that humiliation, harassment, and conspiracy by administrative officers and others drove him to end his life. The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s quashing of the FIR, reiterating that not every instance of humiliation or pressure amounts to abetment.

This article examines the statutory framework, judicial interpretations, and the implications of the judgment to answer the broader question: Does every humiliation or pressure equal abetment of suicide?

Statutory Framework

Section 306 IPC (Section 108 BNS)

Section 306 IPC punishes abetment of suicide with imprisonment up to ten years and a fine. Under the BNS, the provision remains in pari materia. However, conviction requires proof that the accused abetted the suicide as defined under Section 107 IPC (now Section 45 BNS).

Section 107 IPC (Section 45 BNS): Abetment Defined

Abetment involves:

• Instigation of a person to do an act; or
• Engaging in a conspiracy for the act; or
• Intentional aiding of the act.

Thus, to sustain a charge under Section 306, there must be:

• A mens rea (guilty intent) to drive the victim to suicide, and
• A proximate act of instigation or aiding.

Statutory Presumptions under the Evidence Act

Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, create presumptions of abetment in specific contexts:

Section 113A (Section 117 of BSA): Suicide by a married woman within 7 years of marriage, coupled with cruelty by husband or relatives.

Section 113B (Section 118 of BSA): Dowry Harassment Leading to Death.

Outside such contexts, courts require clear evidence of instigation or aiding.

Case Study: Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025)

Background

Abhinav Mohan Delkar, a seven-time MP, committed suicide on 22 February 2021. His note accused certain officers and individuals of humiliation, harassment, and conspiracy to tarnish his image and take over a trust-managed college. His son filed an FIR for abetment to suicide.

The High Court quashed the FIR under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), finding no prima facie case. The matter reached the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant: Harassment was continuous; conspiracy and humiliation were evident. Extortion and takeover attempts were mentioned in the suicide note. Precedents like Dammu Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan were cited to argue that abetment can exist even without a proximate incident.

Respondents: The accusations were ambiguous and appeared only in the suicide note. No proximate act or live link existed between alleged harassment and suicide. The extortion allegation was never raised before.

Supreme Court’s Findings

1. Continuous harassment is insufficient: Even if harassment existed, a proximate act driving the suicide must be shown
2. Mens rea is essential: The accused must have intended, or it must be reasonably inferable, that their conduct was aimed at driving the victim to suicide
3. Suicide note not conclusive: Allegations in the note, absent earlier complaints, were deemed unreliable.
4. Proximate trigger required: The Court emphasised the “last straw” test—suicide must be linked to a clear, prior act of instigation
5. Different individuals react differently: Courts cannot generalise liability merely because one person succumbed under pressure.

The Court concluded that humiliation or pressure, without deliberate instigation, does not constitute abetment to suicide

Judicial Precedents on Abetment to Suicide

Cases Supporting the Requirement of Proximity

• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001): A casual remark in anger cannot be treated as instigation.
• S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010): Clear mens rea and a direct act leading to suicide are essential.
• Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010): Mere harassment without proximate act is insufficient.
• Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010): Suicide note alone not enough; there must be corroborating instigation.

Cases Where Abetment Was Established

1. Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2017): Persistent harassment and proximate threats led to conviction
2. Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019): Continuous humiliation coupled with a proximate taunt directly linked to suicide was held to be abetment
3. Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan (2018): Multiple actions by wife against husband, coupled with suicide notes, were sufficient to frame charges

Key Principles Evolved

From the Supreme Court’s consistent rulings, the following principles emerge:

1. Mens Rea is Crucial: The accused must have intended, or it must be reasonably inferred, that their actions were aimed at provoking suicide.
2. Proximate Act Requirement: There must be a live link between the accused’s act and the suicide—the “last straw.”
3. Suicide Note Not Decisive: While relevant, it cannot alone establish abetment if allegations are inconsistent with prior conduct.
4. Victim’s Sensitivity Not Enough: If suicide stems from hypersensitivity to ordinary discord, abetment cannot be presumed.
5. Context Matters: Social background, relationship dynamics, and setting influence assessment.

Implications of the Judgment

1. For Law Enforcement: Police must carefully evaluate whether FIRs under Section 306 are justified. Blind registration based on suicide notes risks misuse and wrongful incarceration.
2. For the Judiciary: Courts must differentiate between ordinary harassment and culpable instigation. Quashing of baseless cases protects against misuse of the criminal process.
3. For Society: The judgment underscores that suicide is a complex psychological act, influenced by personal vulnerabilities. Criminal liability cannot be imposed without clear causal acts of others.

Critical Analysis

The ruling is consistent with earlier precedents, preventing misuse of Section 306. However, critics argue it may narrow the scope of protection for victims genuinely driven to suicide by sustained harassment.

The Court could have more strongly emphasised institutional accountability, especially where systemic humiliation is alleged against powerful actors. Still, by insisting on proximity and mens rea, the Court balances protection of victims with safeguarding individuals from unfounded charges.

Conclusion

Not every instance of humiliation or pressure amounts to abetment of suicide under criminal law. The Supreme Court in Abhinav Mohan Delkar reaffirmed that abetment requires:

1. A deliberate intention (mens rea) to drive the victim to suicide, and
2. A proximate act linking the accused’s conduct to the death.

Continuous harassment, however deplorable, cannot automatically attract Section 306 of the IPC unless coupled with a specific instigating act. The judgment strengthens the principle that criminal law must punish only conscious culpability, not mere association with a tragic outcome.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams