Interpersonal disputes and threats to initiate legal proceedings without proximity or *mens rea* do not constitute abetment of suicide.

The revisionist challenged an order dated 12/09/2025 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur, framing charges under Section 306 IPC / Section 108 r/w 3(5) BNS.

On 23/08/2024, the deceased (Mohan) committed suicide by hanging.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and a co-accused harassed the deceased by demanding money and threatening to file a false molestation case.

The deceased’s wife stated that despite a prior village Panchayat compromise where the deceased paid Rs. 3,30,000, the applicant allegedly threatened him again on 21/08/2024.

The revisionist argued that the acts did not constitute abetment and that there was no proximate link to the suicide.

1. Whether the allegations against the applicant, specifically the threat to file a false FIR, constitute "instigation" or "abetment" under Section 306 IPC / Section 108 BNS.

2. Whether there existed a direct and proximate link between the alleged harassment on 21/08/2024 and the suicide on 23/08/2024 to sustain the framing of charges.

The court applied Section 306 of the IPC (and the corresponding Section 108 of the BNS) regarding abetment of suicide, which requires a clear mens rea and a positive act of instigation.

It relied on Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002), establishing that words uttered in anger or without proximate connection do not amount to instigation.

It further cited Prakash vs. State of Maharastra (2024) and Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala v. State of Gujarat (2026), which held that mere persistent demands for money or threats to file a case, without inciting a person to end their life, do not constitute abetment.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was logically inconsistent; it was "inherently absurd" that a borrower (the applicant) would visit the lender (deceased) to demand more money and threaten him.

Crucially, the Court found a lack of "proximity," noting a two-day gap between the alleged threat (21/08/2024) and the suicide (23/08/2024), during which the deceased had ample time to pursue legal remedies like lodging an FIR.

The Court determined that the trial court failed to see that even if the allegations were true, a threat to file a case might amount to harassment but lacks the specific mens rea to compel a person to commit suicide.

Consequently, in the absence of a suicide note or a positive act proximate to the death, the ingredients for abetment were not met.

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 12/09/2025 and discharged the applicant from offenses under Section 306 IPC and Section 108 read with Section 3(5) BNS. The applicant’s bail and surety bonds were ordered to be discharged.