Mere beating without proximate instigation or intentional aid does not constitute abetment of suicide.

Narayan Singh was found hanging from a tree after returning home in a drunken condition, eating, and going to sleep.

The initial information given by his father reported these circumstances but did not allege that anyone had beaten or instigated him.

During the inquest, however, the deceased’s wife and other witnesses stated that he had been beaten by the petitioners and had committed suicide because he was distressed by their conduct.

The police registered an FIR under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioners sought its quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

They argued that the material did not disclose instigation or intentional aid; the State opposed, contending that the witness statements established a prima facie case.

Whether the FIR and supporting material disclosed the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS, including instigation or intentional aid with a proximate nexus to the suicide.

Whether the allegation under Section 3(5) of the BNS could independently sustain the proceedings when no substantive offence under Section 108 was disclosed.

Section 108 of the BNS criminalizes abetment of suicide, and “abetment” is governed by Section 45 of the BNS, which requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.

The Court applied Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, for the requirement of a positive act intended to instigate or aid suicide; Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200, for a live and proximate link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide; and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, for the principle that harassment or cruelty alone, without positive incitement or intentional aid connected to the suicide, is insufficient.

The Court also considered its quashing jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court compared the initial information with the later witness statements.

Even accepting the latter at their highest, they alleged only that the deceased had been beaten and was distressed as a result; they identified no specific proximate incident, exhortation, threat, or intentional act facilitating the suicide.

The deceased’s having returned home drunk and gone to sleep, together with the absence of a proximate act of instigation or aid, left the necessary nexus and mens rea unestablished.

Because the foundational allegations did not disclose abetment under Section 108, the Section 3(5) allegation could not independently sustain the proceedings.

It allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered as Crime No. 0013/2026, along with all consequential criminal proceedings, insofar as they related to the petitioners.