Section 107 BNS | Minor's Suicide Does Not Relieve Prosecution Of Burden To Establish Ingredients Of Abetment: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that even though Section 107 of BNS deals with abetment of suicide of a child, the prosecution still has the burden to disclose the ingredients of the offence. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 433] 

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed,

"Section 107 of the BNS deals with abetment of suicide of a child or a person of unsound mind. Though the provision is attracted to the suicide of a child, the prosecution must still disclose the ingredients of abetment, namely, the requisite act of instigation, intentional aid or the other statutory ingredients of abetment. The fact that the deceased was a minor, by itself, cannot dispense with the requirement of establishing a legally cognizable act attributable to the accused". 

An application was filed by the grandfather and maternal uncle of the deceased seeking to quash an FIR registered in District Panna for the offence of abetment (Section 107 of BNS). 

The FIR was filed after a doctor informed the police that a 14-year-old boy was brought to the hospital in dead condition. Thereafter, a merg inquiry was registered and conducted. From the suicide note and statements of his parents, the police formed the opinion that the deceased had committed suicide due to harassment allegedly caused by the present applicants. 

The counsel for the applicants argued that the essential ingredients of abetment were absent. Additionally, the suicide note did not contain specific allegations showing that the applicants instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. 

The counsel further argued that the mere mention of the applicants' names does not by itself constitute abetment. The counsel argued that the allegations of harassment contained in statements of family members were general and vague in nature and cannot substitute for the foundational requirement of instigation or intentional aid. 

The counsel for the State argued that the deceased was a minor and that the suicide note, along with the witness statement, constitutes sufficient material for proceeding against the applicants. 

The court noted that even if the prosecution's case is accepted in its entirety, it still needs to disclose the basic ingredients of abetment to justify continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants. 

Referring to the Supreme Court case of Kiran Deshmukh v State of MP [SLP (Crl.) Nos.18722- 18773 of 2025,] the bench reiterated that mere reference of accused names in a suicide note without anything to further the substantial allegations cannot form a basis to prima facie attribute the offence of abetment to suicide. 

Applying the mentioned principle to the present case, the court noted that the prosecution relied on the alleged suicide note and statements of family members without showing any specific act attributable to the accused to show that the accused instigated, provoked, incited or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. 

Thus, the bench highlighted:

"The mere fact that the names of the applicants were allegedly found in the suicide note cannot, in isolation, constitute the offence. The contents of the document have to disclose the requisite ingredients of abetment. Naming a person, without particulars of instigation, intentional aid or a proximate act having nexus with the suicide, cannot automatically result in criminal liability. This proposition assumes greater significance where the prosecution itself does not point out any specific incident immediately preceding the suicide attributable to the applicants".

Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed the registered FIR and consequential proceedings. 

For Petitioners: Advocate Jagdish Prasad Singrol

For State: Advocate Neetu Pashine