Kerala viral video suicide case: As court denies bail to woman, what is the law on abetment of suicide?

What is abetment to suicide?

Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita prescribes both the definition of abetment of suicide and the punishment for it, stating that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine.

This is a “cognizable” offence, meaning the police can make an arrest without a warrant. It is also “non-bailable”. This means bail is not a matter of right, as it is for minor offences, but is granted at the discretion of the court. In this instance, the court denied the bail on Tuesday. It is also “non-compoundable”, which means it cannot be settled or withdrawn by the complainant.

For making a case of abetment of suicide, the prosecution must prove more than just the accused having caused stress or harassment to the deceased. The law requires three specific ingredients: instigation (the accused must have actively urged or provoked the deceased to take their life); conspiracy (the accused engaged with others to bring about the suicide); and intentional aid (the accused facilitated the suicide through an act or illegal omission).

The most critical factor courts look for is mens rea, or a guilty mind. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that for an act to constitute abetment, there must be a clear intention on the part of the accused of driving the person to suicide.

Guardrails against ‘mechanical’ invocation

The judiciary has frequently cautioned police against invoking abetment charges casually. In a judgment in 2011, the Supreme Court set a high bar, ruling that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. The court stated there must be an “active … or direct act” by the accused that leaves the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. This act, the court said, “must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide”.

In January 2025, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and K V Viswanathan remarked that abetment charges should not be “mechanically” invoked. The bench observed that the provision should not be used against individuals merely to “assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased”.

This follows a consistent line of judicial thinking. In 2002, the apex court held that a comment or statement uttered in haste or anger would not amount to abetment.

Reiterating this in 2019, another bench of the court had said that “[t]here must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide … if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of [the offence of abetment of suicide].”

The court has also distinguished between domestic relationships and professional or public interactions.

In October 2024, while quashing a case against senior officers accused of harassing a salesman who later died by suicide, the Supreme Court distinguished between “sentimental ties” and “official capacity”.

The court noted that in cases involving close family relations, a normal quarrel might result in a psychological imbalance leading to suicide. However, in professional or public settings, the bar for proof is higher. There must be evidence of “direct and alarming encouragement” or incitement by the accused.

In the Kerala case, a court will eventually have to determine whether posting a video on social media — even if defamatory — constituted a direct, active intent to force the deceased to end his life or if it fell under the category of actions that caused mental distress but lacked the specific criminal intent required for abetment.