Section107 of IPC

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan has held that merely refusing to marry, without any active instigation or intentional aid, does not satisfy the legal requirements of “abetment” under Sections 306 and 107 IPC. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Yadwinder Singh @Sunny V. State of Punjab & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Yadwinder Singh @Sunny v. State of Punjab & Anr.(2025) ? 

• Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny, a government advocate posted at Batala, and Pardeep Kaur, also a government advocate posted at Amritsar, were in a romantic relationship and had developed intimacy with each other. In 2015, Yadwinder came to Pardeep's house and assured her mother, Surinder Kaur, that he and Pardeep liked each other and wished to marry.  
• He stated that his father was somewhat opposed to the match but he would persuade him soon, requesting that Pardeep not be married elsewhere. 
• There was significant opposition from Yadwinder's family regarding the proposed marriage with Pardeep. Despite his initial assurances and the mutual affection between them, Yadwinder eventually backed out from marrying Pardeep due to family pressure and reluctance to proceed against his parents' wishes. 
• On 6th November 2016, Pardeep was studying in the upper room of her house. According to her mother's supplementary statement, she had multiple telephonic conversations with Yadwinder that day.  
• When Pardeep's condition deteriorated and she was being rushed to hospital after consuming poison, she told her mother that Yadwinder had committed fraud with her, exploited her mentally and physically on the pretext of marriage, and when she warned him that she would consume poison if he betrayed her, he callously responded that he did not care if she died and she could do whatever she wanted.  
• Pardeep also allegedly contacted Yadwinder's father, Balwinder Singh, at around 4:30 PM, but received no sympathetic response. She died during treatment at approximately 11:00 PM that night at Escorts Hospital, Amritsar. 
• On 7th November 2016, Surinder Kaur, mother of the deceased, lodged a First Information Report at Chheharta Police Station, Amritsar, alleging that her daughter committed suicide by consuming poison due to being betrayed by Yadwinder Singh, who had promised marriage but then refused. The FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide). 
• Two days later, on 9th November 2016, the first informant gave a supplementary statement providing additional details about the alleged mental and physical exploitation, the telephonic conversations, and Yadwinder's alleged instigation. She handed over CDs of conversations between her daughter and Yadwinder, as well as mobile phone bills, to the investigating officer. 
• Sessions Case No. 728 of 2018 was initiated against Yadwinder Singh in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking quashing of the FIR.  
• The High Court rejected his petition vide order dated 17th March 2025 in CRM-M-No.41256 of 2018, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7309 of 2025. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the legal position regarding abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is well-settled. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence are: (i) suicidal death, and (ii) abetment thereof. Abetment, as defined under Section 107 IPC, involves instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding the commission of an act. Instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage someone to do an act. 
• The Court emphasized that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding in the commission of suicide. Without a positive act on part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. There must be a clear mens rea (guilty mind) to commit the offence.  
  • The ingredients of Section 306 IPC would stand fulfilled only if the suicide is committed due to direct and alarming encouragement or incitement by the accused, leaving no option but to commit suicide.  
  • The act of instigation must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that they are left with no other option but to take their own life. 
• The Court observed that even accepting the entire prosecution case without adding or subtracting anything, none of the ingredients constituting the offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 IPC were made out.  
  • While the appellant may have declined to marry the deceased due to opposition and pressure from his family, it could not be said that he created a situation whereby the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act, namely suicide. 
• The Court specifically held that mere refusal to marry, even if true, by itself would not amount to instigation as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC. Though the young woman may have felt hurt and disappointed, and one sensitive moment tragically led to the loss of her life, the Court as an adjudicating body was obliged to decide the matter strictly on the basis of evidence on record and whether the allegations constituted any offence in law. 
• The Court concluded that putting the accused to trial on the basis of the evidence on record would be nothing short of a travesty of justice, as the trial would be an empty formality.  
  • The Court allowed the appeal, quashing FIR No. 273 of 2016 dated 7th November 2016 registered at Chheharta Police Station, Amritsar, as well as the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 728 of 2018 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Punjab. 
• The Court also noted that the first informant, the mother of the deceased, although served with notice by the Supreme Court, chose not to remain present before the Court to oppose the appeal. 

What is Section 107 of IPC,1860? 

• Definition of Abetment 
  • Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing through any of three specified modes. 
• Three Modes of Abetment 
  • The first mode is instigation, where a person instigates another to do that thing. 
  • The second mode is conspiracy, where a person engages with one or more persons in a conspiracy for doing that thing, and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy.  
  • The third mode is intentional aid, where a person intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 
• Explanation 1: Wilful Misrepresentation 
  • A person who by wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material fact which they are bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. 
• Explanation 2: Facilitation 
  • Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything to facilitate the commission of that act and thereby facilitates its commission, is said to aid the doing of that act. 
• Mental Element Required 
  • All three modes require mens rea or guilty intention. The abettor must have the intention to bring about the commission of the act through active participation, not mere passive presence.