Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalised the abetment of suicide and has been replaced by Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, effective 1 July 2024. The maximum sentence of ten years remains unchanged. The key modification is that fine is now a mandatory component of sentencing rather than discretionary.
What changed
| Old law | New law | |
|---|---|---|
| Act | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
| Section | 306 | 108 |
| Title | Abetment of suicide | Abetment of suicide |
| Change type | Modified — fine made mandatory, substance largely unchanged |
Full statutory text
Section 306 IPC (repealed w.e.f. 1 July 2024)
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.
Section 108 BNS
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.
Key differences
Substantive text identical: The text of BNS 108 is a verbatim reproduction of IPC 306. The offence definition, the mental element (abetment), and the punishment (imprisonment up to ten years with fine) are identical.
Nature of offence unchanged: Abetment of suicide remains a cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence triable by the Court of Session.
Definition of abetment unchanged: Abetment continues to require one of three components under BNS Section 45 (corresponding to IPC Section 107): (a) instigation, (b) conspiracy, or (c) intentional aiding.
Structural placement: Under the BNS, abetment of suicide is placed alongside other offences affecting the human body, maintaining the same thematic grouping as under the IPC.
Burden of proof unchanged: The prosecution must establish a direct, proximate causal link between the accused's actions and the suicide. Mere harassment without a proximate nexus to the act of suicide does not suffice.
What this means for practitioners
For drafting and citations: All charge sheets and FIRs for abetment of suicide offences committed on or after 1 July 2024 must cite Section 108 BNS instead of Section 306 IPC. The definition of abetment should reference Section 45 BNS (instead of Section 107 IPC).
For pending cases: Cases registered under Section 306 IPC for offences committed before 1 July 2024 continue under the old provision. Since the punishment is identical, no sentencing disparity arises from the transition.
For new cases: The prosecution strategy remains fundamentally unchanged. The prosecution must prove: (a) the deceased committed suicide, (b) the accused abetted the suicide through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, and (c) there was a direct, proximate causal nexus between the abetment and the suicide. Defence strategies — including challenging the causal link, establishing that the accused's conduct did not cross the threshold from harassment to instigation, and demonstrating absence of mens rea — remain identical.
Does old case law still apply?
The entire body of jurisprudence on Section 306 IPC is directly applicable to Section 108 BNS.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648 — A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 306 IPC and drew a clear distinction between the "right to life" under Article 21 and any purported "right to die." The Court held that abetment of suicide must involve a positive act of instigation or aid, not merely a failure to prevent. This constitutional framework remains operative.
Sanju v. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 — The Supreme Court held that for conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation. The instigation must be such that it leaves no option for the deceased except to commit suicide. Mere quarrels, altercations, or general harassment — without a proximate act of instigation — do not constitute abetment. This standard continues to govern BNS 108.
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 — The Court held that instigation is the deliberate goading of a person to do something, and there must be intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the person to commit suicide. The element of mens rea (intentional act of instigation) was emphasised as essential.
All three decisions remain binding and applicable under BNS 108.
Judicial interpretation under BNS 108 (post-July 2024)
Shiv Shankar v. Ram Avtar & Ors. (10 July 2025)
Court: Delhi High Court | Judge: Neena Bansal Krishna | Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal under Section 306 IPC upheld
The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of respondents charged under Section 306/34 IPC for abetment of suicide. The deceased's father alleged that his son was driven to suicide by threats from his wife and her brothers regarding false dowry cases. A suicide note in the deceased's handwriting was recovered and authenticated by handwriting analysis.
Despite the authenticated suicide note, the Court held that its content contained only general allegations of threats without any specific act of instigation proximate to the suicide. The Court ruled that abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC cannot be established based on general allegations, emotional distress, or even threats of filing dowry cases — there must be a proximate act of instigation, encouragement, or intentional aid directly linked to the time of suicide. The Court explicitly rejected the notion that prolonged marital discord or vague threats alone suffice to prove mens rea.
This decision reinforces and extends the Supreme Court's framework from Sanju (2002) and Chitresh Kumar Chopra (2009), and will directly govern the application of Section 108 BNS. Practitioners should note that the authenticity of a suicide note, while relevant, is not determinative — its content must demonstrate direct incitement or coercion proximate to the act.
Veritect reference: DLHC010091582021_1_2025-07-10
Emerging patterns
Based on available post-July 2024 abetment of suicide jurisprudence:
- Courts maintain a strict requirement for proximate instigation — mere harassment or general threats do not constitute abetment
- Suicide notes require analysis of content (not just authenticity) to determine whether they establish a direct causal link
- The absence of formal complaints from both parties may be considered a relevant factor in assessing the credibility of harassment allegations
Frequently asked questions
What is the BNS equivalent of Section 306 IPC? Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the direct equivalent of Section 306 IPC. The text is virtually identical, and the maximum punishment of ten years imprisonment with fine is unchanged.
Does old case law on Section 306 IPC still apply? Yes, fully. Since the provision is substantively identical, all Supreme Court precedent — including the requirements of proximate causation, intentional instigation, and the distinction between harassment and abetment — continues to apply without modification.
Which section applies to cases before 1 July 2024? Section 306 IPC applies to all abetment of suicide offences committed before 1 July 2024. Section 108 BNS applies to offences committed on or after 1 July 2024. Since the punishment is identical, the transitional distinction has no practical impact on sentencing.
What must the prosecution prove for abetment of suicide? Under both Section 306 IPC and Section 108 BNS, the prosecution must establish: (a) the deceased committed suicide, (b) the accused abetted the suicide through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, and (c) there was a direct, proximate causal link between the accused's conduct and the suicide. Mere harassment, without a specific act of instigation proximate to the suicide, is insufficient.