Section 107

Ordinary abetment of suicide (covered elsewhere in the Sanhita) carries a lesser maximum punishment. This section singles out cases where the victim was especially vulnerable — a child, a person with mental illness, someone delirious, or someone intoxicated — because such people cannot fully understand or resist manipulation, pressure, or encouragement to end their life. Lawmakers treat exploiting this vulnerability as an aggravated form of the offence, deserving much harsher punishment, including the death penalty, to deter predatory or exploitative behavior toward those least able to protect themselves.

Courts interpreting the predecessor provision (Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which this section replaces) have held that 'abetment' requires clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid — mere presence or a moral failure to prevent suicide is not enough. Courts have also scrutinized whether the victim genuinely fell into the protected categories (e.g., proving unsoundness of mind or that intoxication was proximate to the suicide) before applying the higher punishment.

• Myth: Just failing to stop someone from committing suicide counts as abetment under this section.
  Fact: Courts have generally required clear proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional assistance — not mere presence or inaction — for abetment to be established.
• Myth: This section applies to any suicide case.
  Fact: It only applies when the person who died was a child, of unsound mind, delirious, or intoxicated at the time; other suicide cases fall under a separate, less severe provision.