Section 108: Abetment of suicide

Corresponding IPC provision

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

Leading cases

• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)Decided on IPC section 306A Constitution Bench held that Article 21 does not include a 'right to die', overruled P. Rathinam, and upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
• Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)Decided on IPC section 306The Court held active euthanasia unlawful but allowed passive euthanasia, laid down a High Court approval procedure for withdrawing life support from incompetent patients until Parliament legislates, and dismissed the petition to stop the petitioner's feeding.

Questions on this section

4 questions in 20 of our papers cite Section 108. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001), the Supreme Court explained "instigation" for the offence of abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC, now Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Which of the following correctly states its view?

   A.Any harsh word said to a person who then commits suicide is instigation if the suicide follows soon afterB.Once cruelty by the husband is shown, the presumption of abetment of a wife's suicide is mandatoryC.Instigation must always be by express words; conduct, however provocative, can never amount to itD.Words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion, without intending their consequences, are not instigation
   Show answer