Abetment of suicide requires clear intent and mental state; mere allegations or references in a suicide note are insufficient without concrete evidence of instigation.

ORDER :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.155 of 2025 of Thenhipalam Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offence punishable under section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).

3. According to the prosecution, on 10.02.2025, Sri.Sunil Kumar, consumed poison and committed suicide and the accused abetted its commission and thereby committed the offence alleged.

4. Sri. Sasith M R, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false, and the petitioners have no involvement in the alleged suicide of the deceased Sri.Sunilkumar. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners have neither instigated nor aided, through any act or omission, the commission of suicide and therefore, petitioners cannot be roped in as accused to the crime. It was further submitted that the prosecution allegations also do not indicate any specific reason which could be attributed as an abetment for the commission of suicide on the part of the petitioners and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners ought not to be permitted.

5. Smt.Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased had, before committing suicide, written a note, specifically referring to the petitioners involvement in his death and, therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary to identify the details and the manner in which the crime was committed. It was also submitted that petitioners had not only behaved rudely, but had also blocked the water and electricity supplies to the house of the deceased under construction, and also had failed to complete its construction as agreed between them, which led to the deceased committing suicide. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there were specific instances of intentional aiding or instigation by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide and hence petitioners ought to be subjected to custodial interrogation.

6. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the case diary.

7. The deceased Sri.Sunilkumar had written a note before committing suicide. The said note refers to the petitioners as persons with whom there was a dispute over water and a case was pending amongst them. Petitioners are alleged to have threatened that if the case was not withdrawn, the deceased will not be permitted to use water for construction purposes.

8. Statements of the witnesses recorded so far also indicate that the second petitioner was supervising the construction of the house of the deceased and there was a quarrel between them and later the second petitioner blocked the supply of water and electricity for the house construction. The first petitioner is also alleged to have collected amounts from the deceased, promising to supervise the completion of construction of the building but thereafter failed to do so, which was also mentioned in the suicide note as one of the reasons for committing suicide.

9. The offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS requires the ingredients of Section 45 BNS to be satisfied. As per the said provision, a person abets the doing of a thing, if he instigates any person to do that thing. It is not every act or conduct that may amount to abetment of suicide. Law requires the accused to have intended by his act or instigation that the deceased would commit suicide. In order to attract the offence under Section 108 of the BNS , the abetment must have been for committing sui