Demand for loan repayment without intentional provocation does not constitute abetment of suicide.

The petitioners, Bahadar Singh and Nandkishore, were charged under Section 108(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), for allegedly abetting the suicide of Bhagwan Singh.

The deceased had reportedly borrowed money from the petitioners and consumed poison on 21.07.2025 following alleged harassment and threats regarding repayment.

An FIR was registered after a 33-day delay.

Crucially, an alleged suicide diary mentioned during the investigation was omitted from the charge-sheet.

The Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, partially allowed a discharge application by dropping charges under the MP Protection of Debtors Act but maintained the charge for abetment of suicide.

The petitioners moved the High Court in revision to challenge this framing of charges.

1. Whether a mere demand for the repayment of a loan constitutes "instigation" or "abetment" of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS.

2. Whether the framing of charges against the petitioners was legally sustainable in the absence of evidence showing mens rea or proximate incitement.

Section 108 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 306 IPC) regarding abetment of suicide and Section 397/401 of the CrPC regarding revisional jurisdiction.

Sanju alias Sanjay Singh v. State of M.P., establishing that "instigate" denotes incitement and requires the presence of mens rea.

Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (2024), which held that abetment requires a positive, deliberate act or direct incitement proximate to the time of death, such that the deceased is left with no other option.

The court also noted the necessity of timely FIRs as per Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu.

The High Court observed that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and aimed at preventing patent illegality.

Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any overt act or "direct and proximate" incitement by the petitioners.

The Court emphasized that a standard demand for loan repayment does not satisfy the legal threshold for abetment.

Furthermore, the Trial Court’s failure to address the gaping hole in the evidence—specifically the missing diary—and the lack of evidence regarding intentional provocation amounted to a "non-application of judicial mind".

Without documentary evidence or proof of a mental process aimed at pushing the deceased to suicide, the ingredients of Section 108 BNS remained unfulfilled.

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2026, finding it suffered from manifest legal infirmity. The criminal revision was allowed, and the petitioners, Bahadar Singh and Nandkishore, were discharged from charges under Section 108(1) and 3(5) of the BNS.