The Supreme Court has held that when two individuals enter into a mutual suicide pact, and one survives, the survivor can be held criminally liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court clarified that an agreement between two people to end their lives together — if acted upon — amounts to instigating or facilitating suicide, and the survivor cannot escape liability merely because the pact involved both parties.
Key Legal Principle
A mutual suicide pact is not treated differently from abetment where one party survives; the survivor’s actions — entering into and acting upon the pact — may be seen as a causal factor leading to the other person’s death.
The Court observed that even if the pact originated in despair and was consensual, the survivor’s conduct in furthering the plan satisfies the statutory elements of abetment, as the law does not condone mutual destruction of life.
The judgment underscores that consent to die by suicide does not immunise participants from criminal liability when the consequences of their agreement include the death of another.
Why This Matters
This ruling reinforces the legal position that abetment of suicide is a serious offence even in cases where both parties initially agreed to die. A survivor of such a pact cannot avoid prosecution by relying on mutual consent, as the act of participating in and executing a suicide pact is considered a form of instigation or facilitation under the Penal Code.
