Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that marital discord, in the absence of cogent evidence of immediate provocation or instigation, is not sufficient to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court held this in the matter of Kulwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2025). 

What was the Background of Kulwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2025) Case? 

• Kulwinder Kaur married Lovepreet Singh on 19th February 2024, in a ceremony conducted according to religious rites and ceremonies.  
• Lovepreet Singh was the elder brother of the complainant Gurpreet Singh. Shortly after the marriage, marital discord began between the couple. 
• According to the complaint filed by Gurpreet Singh, his sister-in-law Kulwinder Kaur allegedly maintained telephonic conversations, chatting, and video calls with one Vijay Kumar, son of Malkit Singh, resident of Village Raipur, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad. The deceased husband Lovepreet Singh reportedly expressed his distress about this situation to his brother multiple times. 
• When Lovepreet Singh approached his mother-in-law Reshma (wife of Ram Chand) seeking her intervention to persuade her daughter to cease these communications, Reshma allegedly stated that her daughter had been friends with Vijay Kumar for a long period and would continue having conversations with him. The family subsequently took Kulwinder Kaur back to her parental home at Village Burj, Tehsil Ratia. 
• Despite the separation, it was alleged that Kulwinder Kaur and her mother Reshma continued to harass Lovepreet Singh. The complainant stated that his brother became increasingly upset and depressed due to these ongoing issues. 
• On 21st May, 2024, at approximately 6:00 AM, Lovepreet Singh died during treatment at Adesh Hospital after consuming insecticide. He had initially been admitted to Juneja Hospital, Malout, before being referred to Adesh Hospital due to his critical condition. 
• An FIR was registered under Sections 306, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. Section 506 IPC was later deleted from the charges. Kulwinder Kaur was arrested and remained in custody for over one year before filing this bail application. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the State failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish immediate provocation or instigation on the part of the petitioner, particularly noting the absence of a suicide note.  
• The Court found that direct allegations and frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased arising out of misunderstandings and discord alone were not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC. 
• The Court noted that such disputes between a husband and wife may be considered part of the ordinary wear and tear of marital life and, without credible and substantial evidence, cannot be treated as instigation or abetment to suicide. 
• The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or prison is an exception.  
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, which established that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence. 
• The Court noted that the petitioner had already suffered incarceration of 1 year and 1 day and was a person of clean antecedents. Additionally, the co-accused had already been granted regular bail by the Court vide order dated 14th November, 2024. 
• The Court observed that the investigation was complete, challan had been presented on 20th July, 2024, and charges had been framed on 24th September 2024. However, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none had been examined so far, indicating that the conclusion of trial was likely to take considerable time. 
• The Court emphasized that the right to speedy trial is part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another. The Court quoted Oscar Wilde's "The Ballad of Reading Gaol" to highlight the impact of prolonged incarceration on an accused person. 
• The Court stressed that a humane attitude is required while dealing with bail applications, considering factors such as maintaining the dignity of an accused person, requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution, and the problem of overcrowding in prisons. 

What is Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the offence of abetment of suicide.  
  • This provision has replaced Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as part of the comprehensive reform of criminal law in India.  
  • The provision establishes criminal liability for any person who abets the commission of suicide by another individual. 
  • Under this section, abetment encompasses any conduct that encourages, assists, or incites another person to commit suicide.  
  • The provision covers a wide spectrum of actions including direct persuasion, emotional manipulation, psychological coercion, or providing means and opportunity for the commission of suicide. 
• Forms of Abetment: The abetment may manifest through various forms of conduct such as verbal instigation, written communication encouraging suicide, providing physical means or instruments for self-harm, creating circumstances that psychologically compel a person to end their life, or any other form of assistance or encouragement that contributes to the decision to commit suicide. 
• Criminal Liability Framework: The section establishes that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be held criminally liable.  
  • The provision requires a direct nexus between the act of abetment and the commission of suicide by the deceased person. 
• Punishment Structure: Upon conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 108 of BNS, the accused shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.  
  • The court has discretionary power to determine the nature and duration of imprisonment based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 
• Types of Imprisonment: The phrase "imprisonment of either description" refers to the court's discretion to impose either rigorous imprisonment involving hard labour or simple imprisonment without hard labour. 
  • The choice between these two forms of imprisonment depends on the severity of the offence and the circumstances under which it was committed. 
• Additional Financial Penalty: In addition to imprisonment, the convicted person shall also be liable to payment of fine.  
  • The quantum of fine is not specified in the provision, leaving it to the judicial discretion of the court to determine an appropriate monetary penalty based on the gravity of the offence and the financial capacity of the offender. 
• Judicial Interpretation and Application: Courts have consistently held that mere existence of marital discord, family disputes, or ordinary disagreements between spouses does not automatically constitute abetment of suicide under this provision. 
  • The prosecution must establish clear and convincing evidence of instigation, encouragement, or assistance that directly contributed to the deceased's decision to commit suicide. 
• Evidentiary Requirements: The provision requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed specific acts constituting abetment of suicide.  
  • Circumstantial evidence alone, without corroborative material such as suicide notes, direct evidence of instigation, or credible witness testimony, may not be sufficient to establish guilt under this section. 
• Legal Safeguards: The provision incorporates safeguards against misuse by requiring substantial evidence of abetment rather than mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence. 
  •  Courts have emphasized that ordinary domestic disputes and marital discord should not be easily construed as abetment of suicide without concrete evidence of instigation or encouragement.