Mere Refusal to Marry Does Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide

Source: Uttarakhand High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Alok Mahra, in Shardul Negi v. State of Uttarakhand (2026), quashed criminal proceedings under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, (Section 108 of BNS) holding that a mere refusal to marry cannot, by itself, be treated as instigation to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC. 

What was the Background of Shardul Negi v. State of Uttarakhand (2026) Case? 

• The case arose out of Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2020, in which the petitioner, Shardul Negi, was alleged to have been in a relationship with the deceased, a staff nurse. 
• The prosecution's case was that when the petitioner decided to end the relationship and declined to marry her, the deceased fell into depression and died by consuming an overdose of the medicine Midazolam. 
• An FIR was lodged by the deceased's father, following which a charge sheet under Section 306 IPC was filed against the petitioner. 
• The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, framed charges against the petitioner, who then filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the charge-framing order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the ingredients missing from the prosecution's case: The petitioner argued that even taking the prosecution's version at face value, the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC were absent, and that a refusal to marry could not be equated with instigation as defined under Section 107 IPC. 
• On the State's opposition: The State and the complainant contended that at the charge-framing stage, courts are not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence, that a prima facie case was made out, and that setting aside the charge was inappropriate given the advanced stage of trial. 
• On the threshold for abetment under Section 306 IPC: Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal and Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that before a person can be held liable under Section 306, the prosecution must establish direct or indirect acts of provocation or incitement that left the deceased with no option but to end their life. 
• On the misuse of Section 306 IPC: The Court expressed disapproval of the routine and mechanical invocation of Section 306 IPC by the police, observing that while genuine cases meeting the threshold should be dealt with firmly, the provision ought not to be used merely to placate the immediate sentiments of a grieving family. 
• On the standard for assessing conduct: The Court held that the conduct of the accused and the deceased must be evaluated from a practical, real-life perspective rather than in isolation, and that ordinary exchanges involving exaggerated or hyperbolic language cannot, without more, be elevated to the level of instigation to suicide. 
• On the duty of trial courts: The Court cautioned trial courts against adopting a "play it safe" approach by mechanically framing charges even where investigating agencies have disregarded the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC, and held that trial courts must exercise due caution and circumspection at the stage of framing charges. 
• On the absence of instigation in the present case: The Court found no evidence of any overt act, active instigation, or intentional aid on the part of the petitioner that could have driven the deceased to take her own life. 
• On relief granted: The revision petition was allowed, the trial court's order framing charges was set aside, and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed. 

What is the Legal Position on Abetment of Suicide under BNS? 

Section 108 of BNS – Abetment of Suicide: 

• Chapter: Chapter VI (Of Offences Affecting the Human Body) 
• Provision: Whoever abets the commission of suicide by any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to ten years, along with liability to fine. 
• Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine. 
• Cognizability: Cognizable offence. 
• Bailability: Non-bailable offence. 
• Triable by: Court of Session. 

Comparison with Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860: 

• Textual continuity: Section 108 BNS reproduces Section 306 IPC verbatim in substance — the ingredients (abetment, suicide, punishment) and the punishment prescribed (up to 10 years' imprisonment and fine) remain unchanged. 
• Classification: Both provisions are cognizable, non-bailable, and triable exclusively by the Court of Session; there is no change in procedural classification. 
• Numbering shift: The only material change is the renumbering — from Section 306 under the IPC to Section 108 under the BNS — consistent with the broader renumbering exercise across the new criminal codes. 
• Chapter placement: Under the IPC, the provision fell within Chapter XVI (Offences Affecting the Human Body). Under the BNS, it is retained within the corresponding Chapter VI, which consolidates offences affecting the human body, preserving its original scheme of placement alongside homicide and hurt-related offences. 
• No change in judicial interpretation: Since the language of Section 108 BNS is identical to Section 306 IPC, existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents on abetment of suicide — including the requirement of a positive act of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid under Section 107 IPC (now Section 45 BNS) — continue to apply without modification.