In a very simple language, we can define this term “Abetment” as “the act of helping or encouraging

someone to do something wrong or illegal:

The meaning of “Abetment” is “to Encourage or assist (someone) to do something wrong, in

particular to commit a crime”.[1]

In other words we can to say that “to encourage or incite another to commit a crime is abetment.
This word is usually applied to aiding in the commission of a crime.

To abet another to commit a murder is to command, procure, counsel, encourage, induce or assist.

To facilitate the commission of a crime, promote its accomplishment or help in advancing or bringing
it about. In relation to charge aiding and abetting term includes knowledge of the perpetrator’s
wrongful purpose and encouragement, promotion or counsel of another in commission of the
Criminal offence.

Legislature has defined the “Abetment” Under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Chapter
V of the IPC on ‘Abetment’ provides for the law covering the responsibility of all those considered in
law to have abetted the commission of offence. The chapter on abetment contains 15 sections.
Section 107 read as under:-

Abetment of a thing  a person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—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   aids,   by   any   act   or   illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

We can understand the aforesaid essential ingredients of “Abetment” through the Explanations as

follows:-

 1:-  A person who, by wilful misrepresentation , or by wilful concealment of material 

fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure , a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

2:- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid
the doing of that act.

In the Case of Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that [2]

Para No. 103:- In Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. I at page 306, the meaning of the word ‘abet’ is given
as follows:-  “To abet has been defined as meaning to aid; to assist or to give aid; to command, to
procure, or to counsel; to countenance; to encourage, counsel, induce, or assist; to encourage or to
set another on to commit. Used with ‘aid’. The word ‘abet’ is generally used with the word ‘aid’ and
similar words.”

Para No. 107:- Section 3(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 gives the meaning of the word ‘abet’
thus:
“3. (1) ‘abet’ with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall have the same meaning
as in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);”

Para No.108:- The lexicon meaning of the word ‘abet’ is given in Collins English Dictionary as “to
assist or encourage, esp. in crime or wrong doing”.

LET US DISCUSS: – WHAT IS “SUICIDE”?

Suicide word is derived from Latin word “suicidium”, the meaning of this word is “the act of taking
one’s own life”.

 “Suicide attempt can be defined as a non-fatal self-directed potentially injurious behaviour with an
intent to die”.[3]

“Sui” means (Self) and “Cide” means (Killing) and hence in other words we can to say that “Suicide is
the act of deliberately taking one’s own life”.

NOW IT IS THE RIGHT STAGE TO DISCUSS ABOUT “ABETMENT OF SUICIDE”

In accordance with the Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Abetment   of   suicide.—if   any  
person   commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable
to fine.

It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Pinakin  Mahipatray  Rawal   vs. State of Gujarat : [4]

“Para No. 26:-Section 113A only deals with a presumption which the court may draw in a particular
fact situation which may arise when necessary ingredients in order to attract that provision are
established.   Criminal   law amendment and the rule of procedure was necessitated so as to meet
the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide
by the husband or his relatives , demanding dowry .
Legislative mandate of the section is that when a woman commits suicide within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty as per the terms defined in Section 498-
A IPC, the court may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide
has been abetted by the husband or   such   person.

Though a presumption could be drawn, the burden of proof of showing that such an offence has

been committed by the accused under Section 498A IPC is on the prosecution.

On facts, we have already found that the prosecution has not discharged the burden that A1 had

instigated, conspired or intentionally aided so as to drive the wife to commit suicide or that the
alleged extramarital affair was of such a degree which was likely to drive wife to commit suicide.

In State   of   W.B. v. Orilal   Jaiswal,[5]:- the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned that the court should
be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence
adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in
fact induced her to end her life   by   committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive   to   ordinary  petulance discord and differences in domestic
life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged   and   such   petulance,   discord   and
differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to
commit suicide,   the conscience of the court should not be satisfied
for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be
found guilty.

In the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs.  State of M.P.[6]:- this Court

found that there was time gap of 48 hours between the Accused telling the deceased “to go and die”
and the deceased “committing Suicide”.    As such, this Court held that there was no material to
establish that the accused had abetted the Suicide committed by the deceased.

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab,[7]:- wherein it has observed as under: “Section 306 prescribes
punishment for “abetment of suicide” while Section 309 punishes “attempt to commit suicide”.
Abetment of attempt to commit suicide is outside the purview of Section 306 and it is punishable
only under Section 309 read with Section 107 IPC. In certain other jurisdictions, even though attempt
to commit suicide is not a penal offence yet the abettor is made punishable.

In other words assisted suicide and assisted attempt to commit suicide are made punishable for
cogent reasons in the interest of society.

Abetment of suicide or attempted suicide is a distinct offence which is found enacted even in the law
of the countries where attempted suicide is not made punishable.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab[8]:- has observed as under: “It is a unique
legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that the only act, the attempt of which alone will
become an offence.

The person who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under Section 309 IPC whereas
the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. Section 306 renders the person who
abets the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that suicide should
necessarily have been committed.

It is possible to abet the commission of suicide. But nobody would abet a mere attempt to commit
suicide. It would be preposterous if law could afford to penalise an abetment to the offence of mere
attempt to commit suicide.”

In the case of Satish Shetty vs. State of Karnataka[9]:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
victim was found to have injuries on her person. Though, the deceased and the husband had slept
together in the same room before she consumed poison, the appellant husband had not at
not at all explained the injuries sustained by the victim.

In these circumstances, the conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, as recorded by the High court

for the first time, was maintained by this Court.

In   the   case   of Thane   Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[10]:- Court by observing the interplay
between section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and sections 498A, 107, and 306 of the IPC ,
held that the appellant was liable for conviction for the offence punishable  under Section 498A and
section 306 of IPC.

However, it is to be noted that in the said case the court relied on the dying
declaration of the deceased wherein she stated that she had been treated with both mental and
physical cruelty. In the saidcase, there was a dying declaration of the deceased which was believed
by the court.  

In Mangat   Ram vs.  State   of   Haryana[11] the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus:

Para No. “28.We have already indicated that the trial court has found that “no offence under
section 304B IPC has been made out against the accused, but it convicted the
accused under Section 306 IPC, even though no charge had been framed on that section against the
Accused”.

The scope and ambit of Section 306 IPC has not been properly appreciated by the courts below …….

Abetment of suicide is confined to the case of persons
who aid or abet the commission of the suicide. 

In the matter of an offence under Section 306 IPC, abetment must attract the definition thereof in

section 107 of IPC. Abetment   is   constituted   by   instigating   a   person   to commit an offence or
engaging in conspiracy to commit, aid or intentional aiding a person to commit it. 

In Case of Gurjit Singh v/s. State of Punjab[12]  Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:-
It would thus be seen, that the charge does not state that the deceased was driven to commit
suicide on account of the harassment meted out to the deceased. It also does not mention that the
accused had abetted in commission of suicide by the deceased.

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the cases wherein conversion is held

to be permissible are clearly distinguishable.

Hans Raj vs. State of Haryana[13] :- the same facts have been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme
court  as under:- it will be relevant to refer to following paragraph:-

 “12.   The question then arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the

appellant can be convicted of the offence under section 306 of IPC with the aid of the presumption
under section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act.  Any person who abets the commission of suicide is
liable to be punished under section 306 of IPC.
Section 107 IPC lays down the ingredients of abetment
which includes instigating any person to do a thing or engaging with one or more persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of a thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, or intentional aid by any act or illegal omission to
the doing of that thing.  In the instant case there is no direct evidence to establish that the appellant
either aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or entered into any conspiracy to aid her
in committing suicide. In the absence of direct evidence the prosecution has relied upon section 113-
A of the Indian Evidence Act under   which   the   court   may   presume   on   proof   of circumstances
enumerated therein, and having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that the suicide
had been abetted by the accused. 

Now in the case of Mr. Arnav M. Goswami v/s. State of Maharashtra[14], The judgment was
delivered by a Bench of Justices Mr. DY Chandrachud and Smt. Indira on 11th day of November,
2020. By pronouncing the verdict on 27 th day of November, 2020, Justice Chandrachud said
that prima facie, it could not be held that Mr. Goswami had abetted the suicide of Mr.  Anvay Naik.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that:-

“55. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to advert briefly to the contents of the FIR in the
present case. The FIR recites that the spouse of the informant had a company carrying on the
business of architecture, interior design and engineering consultancy. According to the informant,
her husband was over the previous two years ―having pressure as he did not receive the money of
work carried out by him. The FIR recites that the deceased had called at the office of the appellant
and spoken to his accountant for the payment of money. Apart from the above statements, it has
been stated that the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his ―money is stuck and
following owners of respective companies are not paying our legitimate dues. Prima facie, on the
application of the test which has been laid down by this Court in a consistent line of authority
which has been noted above, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of having abetted the
suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC. These observations, we must note, are prima
facie at this stage since the High Court is still to take up the petition for quashing.

CONCLUSION: – Abetment to suicide is as old as human civilization itself. It is self-murder or self-

destruction and it is done in many ways in which life itself can be destroyed. There are many
reasons for the same. In case of suckles by the married women during early of the married life the
dowry demands and consequent taunts and cruelty may be one of the major reasons. But it is not
only the reasons. Now-a-days in most of unfortunate deaths of young person /s, the depression,
unemployment, unsuccessful carrier, bad health and heavy work load are projected as the reason
for the suicide.

For conviction for the offence of Abetment of Suicide, under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
1860, It must be the prima facie responsibility of the prosecution to prove that:-

1. The death of the deceased is suicidal death as the deceased has committed suicide,

2. The accused instigated or abetted for committing suicide, (under the provisions of section 107 of
the Indian Penal Code 1860) and

3. Mens Rea of the accused[15].

The liability arises only when the suicide is committed. It is noteworthy to mention here that “ In
case of an attempted suicide, provisions of Section 306 will not be applicable”.

In other words, it would be correct to say that “For conviction under Section 305 or 306, the
offence of abetment must conform to the definition of „abetment‟ given in section 107 of the
Indian Penal Code.” There must be instigation, or engaging in conspiracy, or assistance in the
commission of the offence.

 In order to convict a person under Section 305 or 306, IPC, there has to be a clear Mens Rea to
commit the offence. A conviction for abetment to suicide is possible only if the accused actually
made a positive move to push 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. The basic constituents of an offence under section 306 are suicidal death and abetment
thereof. The direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary. In
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the court dealt with the dictionary
meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The court opined that there should be intention
to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person‟s suicidal pattern is
different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each
case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

as the criminal jurisprudence always says:- “Let a thousand guilty be acquitted, but one innocent
should not be convicted’ bring”.