Mere Breaking Up of Relationship Not 'Instigation' For Abetment of Suicide

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Manoj Jain of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Noor Mohammad v. State NCT of Delhi (2026), held that merely breaking up a relationship does not per se constitute "instigation" to make out an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 306 IPC). The Court granted regular bail to a university professor accused of abetting the suicide of a 27-year-old woman. 

What was the Background of Noor Mohammad v. State NCT of Delhi (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from the suicide of a 27-year-old school teacher, who allegedly hanged herself at her residence on October 24, 2025. 
• The next day, the deceased's father lodged an FIR alleging that the accused — a university professor — had abetted her suicide by coercing her to convert her religion as a precondition for marriage. 
• According to the complainant, the deceased had come into contact with the accused during her academic pursuits, following which he established a relationship with her and later began pressurising her to convert, causing her severe mental stress. 
• The accused was arrested on November 14, 2025. 
• The accused approached the Delhi High Court seeking regular bail, contesting that the ingredients of abetment of suicide were not made out against him. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Justice Manoj Jain noted that there was no dying declaration on record that could shed light on the state of mind of the deceased at the time she took the extreme step of ending her life. 
• The Court observed that the parties had been in a relationship for around eight years, during which period no complaint was filed by the deceased. 
• The Court noted that the diaries recovered from the house of the deceased appeared to reflect her personal manifestations — as someone in a love relationship who merely wished to transform her desire into reality. 
• Justice Jain found it to be a case of a broken relationship, wherein the deceased, having come to know that the accused had married someone else, chose to end her life. 
• The Court held that instigation means to provoke, incite, or encourage a person to do an act, and to establish abetment or instigation, there must be a clear mens rea on the part of the accused. 
• The Court further clarified that instigation must be of such a nature that it leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. 
• The Court observed that "though broken relationship and heartbreaks have become common these days, mere breaking-up of relationship may not per se constitute instigation so as to make it to be a case of abetment under Section 108 BNS (corresponding Section 306 IPC)." 
• Taking note of the completion of investigation, the filing of the chargesheet, and the accused's roots in society, the Court granted him regular bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety bond of ₹25,000 each. 

What is the Abetment of Suicide? 

Legal Definition and Framework: 

• Abetment of suicide is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). 
• The offence involves deliberate acts that facilitate or encourage another person to commit suicide. 

Three Essential Components of Abetment: 

• Direct Instigation: This involves actively encouraging, provoking, or urging a person to commit suicide through words, gestures, or conduct that would incite the victim to take their own life. 
• Conspiracy: This occurs when two or more persons engage in a conspiracy to facilitate suicide, and some act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy. 
• Intentional Aid: This involves providing assistance through any act or illegal omission that helps the person commit suicide, including willful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. 

Legal Provisions and Penalties: 

Under Section 108 BNS (Section 306 IPC), abetment of suicide carries: 

• Imprisonment of either description for up to 10 years. 
• Additional fine as monetary penalty. 
• The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable. 
• Cases are tried in Sessions Courts. 

Special Provisions for Vulnerable Persons: 

Section 107 BNS provides enhanced punishment when the victim is a child, person of unsound mind, delirious person, or intoxicated person. In such cases, the punishment extends to death penalty or life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to ten years with fine. 

Burden of Proof Requirements: 

• Direct Causation: There must be clear evidence linking the accused's actions to the victim's decision to commit suicide. 
• Specific Intent: The accused must have intended their actions to drive the person to suicide, not merely cause general distress. 
• Proximate Connection: Courts require evidence of acts occurring close in time to the suicide that directly compelled the victim to take the extreme step. 
• Active Participation: Mere passive presence or general harassment is insufficient; there must be positive acts of instigation or aid. 

Key Legal Distinctions: 

• What Constitutes Abetment: Active instigation with intent to cause suicide, conspiracy to facilitate suicide, or intentional aid in the commission of suicide. 
• What Does Not Constitute Abetment: General harassment, professional pressure without specific suicidal intent, workplace stress, marital discord without proximate instigation, or emotional distress from ordinary life conflicts. 

Case Laws: 

Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010): 

• In this case, the accused was alleged to have continuously harassed and insulted the deceased. The deceased was a driver who left behind a suicide note accusing his employer of driving him to suicide through persistent harassment and insulting behavior. 
• The Supreme Court held that despite the existence of a suicide note directly blaming the accused employer, there was absolutely nothing in either the suicide note or the First Information Report that could even distantly be viewed as constituting an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The court established that mere allegations of continuous harassment and insults, even when documented in a suicide note, are insufficient to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide without specific acts of instigation that directly led to the extreme step. 

Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010): 

• The Supreme Court in this case laid down a crucial principle regarding the requirement of proximate causation in abetment to suicide cases. 
• The court held that "merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." 
• This judgment established that there must be a clear temporal connection between the accused's actions and the suicide. The court emphasized that harassment allegations alone, without demonstrable positive acts occurring close to the time of suicide that directly compelled the victim to take the extreme step, cannot sustain a conviction for abetment. 
• Both cases reinforced the principle that the prosecution must establish not just harassment, but specific acts of instigation with proximate causation to prove abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.