The section that replaced IPC 306. Why the courts have held again and again that harassment alone is not this offence, the three things that must be established, why the presumption for a married woman is only permissive, and how this section differs from dowry death.
Section 108 of the BNS punishes abetment of suicide. It replaced Section 306 IPC on 1 July 2024. The punishment is up to ten years and a fine. It is cognizable, non-bailable, tried by a Court of Session, and not compoundable.
Harassment alone is not the offence. The Supreme Court has held, repeatedly and recently, that three things must be established: a direct or active act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding; a guilty intention on the part of the accused; and close proximity in time between that act and the death. Words spoken in anger, and ordinary domestic or workplace friction, do not meet that test.
Watch the numbering. Under the old Code, Section 107 defined abetment. Under the BNS, Section 107 is abetment of the suicide of a child or a person of unsound mind. The definitions of abetment and abettor are now Sections 45 and 46.
The presumption for a married woman is permissive, not mandatory. Where a married woman dies by suicide within seven years and cruelty is shown, the court may presume abetment — in contrast to the dowry-death presumption, where it shall presume.
Little in substance, and a good deal in numbering.
| What it covers | Old law | New law | Punishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abetment of suicide | Section 306 IPC | 108 BNS | Up to 10 years and fine |
| Abetment of the suicide of a child, a person of unsound mind, a delirious person or a person intoxicated | Section 305 IPC | 107 BNS | Death, imprisonment for life, or up to 10 years, and fine |
| Definition of abetment | Section 107 IPC | 45 BNS | Definitional |
| Abettor | Section 108 IPC | 46 BNS | Definitional |
| Punishment of abetment where the act abetted is committed | Section 109 IPC | 49 BNS | Same as the offence abetted |
This one catches practitioners as well as clients, and it is worth stating plainly.
Under the Indian Penal Code, Sections 107 and 108 were the definition pair — 107 defined abetment, 108 defined an abettor — and the offence of abetting a suicide was Section 306.
Under the BNS, Sections 107 and 108 are both offences. Section 107 is abetment of the suicide of a child or a person of unsound mind. Section 108 is abetment of suicide. The definitions have moved to Sections 45 and 46, at the front of the Sanhita.
| Replaces | Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 |
| In force from | 1 July 2024 |
| Punishment | Up to 10 years and fine |
| Cognizable? | Yes |
| Bailable? | Non-bailable |
| Tried by | Court of Session |
| Compoundable? | No — it appears in neither compounding table |
| Limitation | None — the limitation rules stop at offences punishable up to three years |
| The presumption | BSA 117 — "may presume", for a married woman within seven years, and only where cruelty is shown |
The Supreme Court has compressed the test into a single sentence in a 2025 decision: there must be direct or indirect instigation, in close proximity to the death, together with clear mens rea.
Each of the three does real work, and a case that fails on any one of them fails altogether. That is why so many of these prosecutions do not survive scrutiny — not because the courts doubt the family's grief, but because grief and a nexus in law are different things.
"Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained."
The Court looked for "an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option".
So a state of affairs is not enough. Nor is a relationship that had become unhappy, or a workplace that had become difficult, or a demand that had become persistent. The question the court asks is: what did this accused person actually do, and when?
The second requirement is the one most often skipped in a charge-sheet.
"The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous."
And in a decision of 2025 the Court added the corollary that decides many matrimonial cases: the guilty mind cannot be gathered merely from what was going on in the mind of the person who died. That a person felt driven to that point is not, by itself, evidence that somebody else intended it.
The Court has also put the ingredients in a form worth remembering: the abetment, and the intention of the accused to aid, instigate or abet the deceased to take that step.
The third requirement is the most concrete, and often the easiest to test against a case file.
"There must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide."
The Court indicated that "a gap of over a month would be sufficient time to dissolve the nexus".
In an earlier case the Court held that a gap of forty-eight hours between the alleged words and the death was itself enough to break the connection.
Most of these cases begin with a quarrel, and the law has a settled answer to that.
"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'."
"A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
The Court returned to this in January 2025, in a case arising out of loan recovery, observing that hyperbole used in exchanges should not be glorified as instigation. And in a decision of 2026 it held that lodging an FIR — even a false one — does not by itself amount to instigating a person to take that step.
Where a married woman dies by suicide within seven years of her marriage, an evidentiary presumption is available. It is much weaker than most people believe, and the difference is one word.
| BSA 117 — abetment of suicide by a married woman | BSA 118 — dowry death | |
|---|---|---|
| The words | The court may presume | The court shall presume |
| Effect | Permissive. The court may draw the inference having regard to all the other circumstances | Mandatory, once the foundational facts are established |
| What must be shown first | Suicide, within seven years of marriage, and cruelty by the husband or his relative | Unnatural death within seven years, and dowry-related cruelty soon before the death |
| Old provision | Section 113A, Evidence Act | Section 113B, Evidence Act |
The Supreme Court has said in terms that this presumption is not mandatory but only permissive, as the words "may presume" suggest. And it reiterated in 2024 that the seven-year fact alone does not bring it into play — cruelty has to be established first.
Our page on Section 80 — dowry death deals with the mandatory presumption on the other side of that line.
These three sections form the cluster that most matrimonial death investigations move within, and they are regularly confused.
| BNS 80 — dowry death | BNS 108 — abetment of suicide | BNS 85 — cruelty | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old section | 304B IPC | 306 IPC | 498A IPC |
| When it applies | Unnatural death of a woman within seven years, with dowry-related cruelty soon before | Any person dies by suicide, and it was abetted | Cruelty — no death required |
| What must be proved | The death, the timing, and the dowry-related cruelty. Causation is supplied by the presumption | Instigation or aiding, a guilty intention, an active act, and proximity | Cruelty as the Sanhita defines it |
| Presumption | BSA 118 — "shall" | BSA 117 — "may", and only for a married woman within seven years | None |
| Punishment | Not less than 7 years, to life | Up to 10 years and fine | Up to 3 years and fine |
| Court | Court of Session | Court of Session | Magistrate of the first class |
Many of these cases begin with a note. Its legal status is narrower than families expect and than the police sometimes assume.
It is admissible. A statement made by a person who has died, about the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in the death, is admissible under the evidence law — and, unlike some other jurisdictions, there is no requirement that the person was expecting to die when it was written.
Admissible is not the same as sufficient. In August 2025 the Supreme Court upheld the quashing of a case founded only on such a note. Its reasons are worth setting out, because they are the checklist a court will apply:
The Court said it could not place absolute reliance on the note to make out a case of abetment. A Delhi High Court decision in 2026 applied the same reasoning and discharged an accused even though the signature had been forensically verified.
There has been an unusually clear run of Supreme Court decisions in the last three years, and their direction is consistent.
| Year | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| 2024 | A guilty mind must be visible and conspicuous, not assumed |
| 2024 | Close proximity is required; a gap of over a month dissolves the connection |
| 2024 | Acquittal where the ingredients were absent, notwithstanding a conviction below |
| 2025 | The three-part test stated in one line — instigation, proximity, mens rea |
| 2025 | Hyperbole in an exchange is not instigation; caution against mechanical prosecution in recovery cases |
| 2025 | A case founded only on a note, unsupported and unexamined, quashed |
| 2026 | Lodging an FIR, even a false one, is not instigation |
| 2026 | Matrimonial discord alone is insufficient |
Where a death is unnatural, a specific machinery is set in motion, and families are often unaware of their own rights within it.
| Step | What happens |
|---|---|
| Police inquest | The officer in charge investigates the apparent cause of death and draws up a report — the machinery in Section 194 of the BNSS |
| Post-mortem | Mandatory where a woman dies by suicide within seven years of her marriage — the section says so expressly |
| Magisterial inquiry | An Executive Magistrate — in Delhi, the SDM — may hold an inquiry instead of, or in addition to the police investigation, under Section 196 |
| The family's rights in it | The relatives are to be informed and allowed to remain present at the inquiry. The body is to be forwarded for examination within twenty-four hours |
| Trial | Committed to and tried by a Court of Session |
| Bail | Non-bailable. Regular bail to the Sessions Court and then the High Court; anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS |
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in criminal and matrimonial matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
This section is written for people at the worst moment of their lives, and it tries to be useful rather than comforting.
It punishes a person who abets the suicide of another. It replaced Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024. The punishment is up to ten years and a fine. It is cognizable, non-bailable, tried by a Court of Session, and not compoundable.
It was, under the old Code. Under the BNS the numbering has moved, and this catches people out. BNS 107 is abetment of the suicide of a child, a person of unsound mind, a delirious person or a person intoxicated — the old Section 305. The general provisions on abetment are elsewhere: BNS 45 defines abetment, BNS 46 defines an abettor, and BNS 49 punishes abetment where the act is committed.
Section 108 is the offence. Sections 45 and 46 supply the meaning of "abets" — instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding. Section 49 is not charged alongside 108, because 108 makes its own express provision for punishment.
No — and this is the single most important thing on this page. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that a suicide following a quarrel, a demand, or even sustained harassment does not by itself make out this offence. There must be a direct or active act of instigation, an intention that the person should take that step, and proximity in time between the act and the death.
Three, and all are needed. Instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding — with a positive act, not merely a state of affairs. A guilty intention on the part of the accused. And close proximity between that act and the death.
The Supreme Court has described it as to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage a person to do an act. It requires something said or done that was aimed at producing that result.
The Supreme Court said in 2001 that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion, without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. In 2025 it added that hyperbole used in an exchange should not be glorified as instigation. Angry words are not, without more, this offence.
Close. In a 2024 decision the Supreme Court said there must be close proximity between the positive act of instigation and the death, and that a gap of over a month would be enough to dissolve the connection. In an earlier case a gap of forty-eight hours was held sufficient to break it.
Yes. The Supreme Court has said that the ingredient of a guilty mind cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous — and that it cannot be gathered merely from what was going on in the mind of the person who died.
There is, but it is much weaker than most people assume. Where a married woman dies by suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or his relative subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume that the suicide was abetted. The words are "may presume", not "shall".
Completely different in strength. In a dowry-death case the court shall presume — it is mandatory once the foundational facts are established. Here the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances. The Supreme Court has said in terms that this presumption is not mandatory but only permissive.
No. Cruelty has to be shown first. A death within seven years of marriage, without more, does not bring the presumption into play — the Supreme Court reiterated this in 2024.
They routinely are, together or in the alternative, because at the charge-sheet stage nobody yet knows which the evidence will establish. But they are not interchangeable. A dowry-death case can succeed without any act of instigation, because the mandatory presumption does the causal work. A case under Section 108 cannot.
Admissible is not the same as sufficient. A note left by a person who has died is admissible as a statement about the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in the death. But in 2025 the Supreme Court upheld the quashing of a case founded only on such a note, where the allegations appeared for the first time in the note, the handwriting had never been compared with admitted samples, there was no evidence about how or where the note was recovered, and there was a gap of days with nothing in between.
In 2026 the Supreme Court held that lodging an FIR — even a false one — does not by itself amount to instigating a person to take that step. The law looks for a direct act aimed at that result.
Then the first question is what specific act is attributed to each person. Omnibus allegations against a group of relatives, with nothing said about what any one of them actually did, are what the courts have repeatedly refused to let go to trial.
These are among the proceedings the Supreme Court has most often ended before trial in recent years, precisely because the ingredients are so often absent on the face of the complaint. The petition goes to the High Court — see our page on Section 528 BNSS.
The offence is non-bailable and tried by a Court of Session, so bail lies to the Sessions Court and then to the High Court. Where arrest is apprehended, the application is for anticipatory bail — see Section 482 BNSS.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us in one line what has happened and at what stage the matter is. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.