BENGALURU: While the police have registered ‘abetment to suicide’ charges against the accused in the Atul Subhash suicide case, experts opine that proving abetment to suicide cases is a very difficult task. Bengaluru has seen 388 abetment to suicide cases in the last three years, yet the conviction rate remains at an alarming 0.
According to the data, 116 cases have been registered in 2024 (up to December), with 44 cases pending trial and 72 under investigation. In 2023 and 2022, 133 and 139 cases were registered, respectively.
Atul Subhash (34), a techie, died by suicide in Bengaluru on December 9. He had left behind a 24-page suicide note, a 90-minute video, and a checklist accusing his wife and in-laws of harassment. While his wife, Nikita Singhania, was arrested from Gurugram, Haryana, her mother, Nisha, and brother, Anurag, were picked up from Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
Abetment to suicide is an offense under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which states that if someone abets, entices, or compels another person to commit suicide, they can be punished. This section previously fell under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The punishment for this crime is up to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine.
Speaking to The New Indian Express, senior advocate Rajalaxmi Ankalagi said that in abetment to suicide cases, it is crucial to first determine whether the victim’s decision to end his or her life was based on personal perception or real circumstances. Most abetment to suicide cases involve victims who were subjected to harassment, torture, or mental pressure, Ankalagi said. “In some cases, such as dowry and harassment-related deaths, family members of the victim often file a complaint alleging abetment to suicide against the in-laws.
In extreme cases, the matter becomes far more serious. The reason behind such an extreme step could be psychological, suicidal tendencies, or unbearable torture. If the suicide is due to torture or harassment, the allegations must be direct, substantial enough to frame a person for abetment, and corroborated by cogent evidence to secure a conviction,” she said.
Ankalagi further added that in abetment to suicide cases, most of the time it is only circumstantial evidence available, which makes trial difficult. “Allegations should be direct, coherent, and supported by strong evidence; only then can a conviction be secured. Cases supported by video recordings, statements, or death notes are often proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even in these cases, if the intention is not proved, it is fatal for investigation,” she added.
Ankalagi remarked that the lack of convictions in such cases is atrocious. She noted that cases with collaborative evidence, including death notes and video statements, should result in convictions, while other cases lacking concrete evidence may lead to acquittals.
Former Director General and Inspector General of Police S T Ramesh said that ‘abetment to suicide’ means that someone contributed for causing another person’s suicide. “Abetment, by nature, is similar to conspiracy. However, proving abetment cases is challenging, much like conspiracy cases, as they require strong evidence. Often, individuals who commit suicide may not leave sufficient evidence behind,” he said.
Ramesh explained that the evidence in such cases may be oral, but oral evidence alone is often insufficient. “If there is proper documentary evidence, it strengthens the case. Even circumstantial evidence can be challenging to prove. On the other hand, medical and forensic evidence can be very compelling,” he added.
Ramesh elaborated on the difficulty of proving abetment to suicide cases. “The primary reason is the lack of strong evidence in such cases. A suicide note, for instance, may serve as a piece of evidence, similar to a dying declaration. It is based on the principle—truth sits upon the lips of dying men. It is believed that someone about to die would not lie. However, a suicide note alone is not always sufficient. Multiple pieces of corroborative evidence are often required to build a strong case,” he said.
He further added that conviction cannot be based on a single person’s statement or a single piece of evidence. “Abetment to suicide is inherently difficult to prove due to a host of other reasons apart from delays in trials, a lack of concrete evidence, and witnesses turning hostile. These factors contribute to the low conviction rates in such cases,” he added.