Abetment of Suicide FIR Against IPS Officer Y. Puran Kumar’s Wife and Her Brother: Legal Tenability in Question
Introduction
The abetment of suicide case registered by the Rohtak police following the death of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Sandeep Lathar has raised serious questions regarding the legal sustainability of the FIR, particularly against deceased Haryana IPS officer Y. Puran Kumar’s wife Amneet P. Kumar, an IAS officer, and her brother, Amit Rattan, an AAP MLA. The FIR also names two police personnel, Sushil Kumar and Sunil Kumar. Legal experts argue that the allegations, as recorded, may not satisfy the essential legal requirements for establishing abetment of suicide.
Background of the Case
The FIR was registered on October 15 based on a complaint by ASI Lathar’s wife, who alleged that administrative and political pressure exerted by Amneet P. Kumar and her brother contributed to her husband’s suicide on October 14. These developments unfolded shortly after IPS officer Y. Puran Kumar himself died by suicide on October 7, leading to intense scrutiny of internal departmental functioning within Haryana Police.
In a video and a suicide note, ASI Lathar linked his suicide to larger systemic issues of corruption and caste-related targeting, alleging that the late IPS officer and his circle were involved in oppressive conduct. However, the note did not identify any specific instigating act immediately preceding the suicide.
Legal Requirement for Abetment of Suicide
Statutory Provision
-
Section 108, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (previously Section 306 IPC)
-
The provision penalizes abetment of suicide, but requires:
-
Direct or indirect instigation
-
Clear intention (mens rea) to provoke suicide
-
Proximity of conduct to the act of suicide
-
Without credible evidence of these elements, criminal liability does not arise.
Supreme Court’s Position on Abetment of Suicide
The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that general allegations, emotional distress, or long-term suffering are insufficient to constitute abetment unless tied to specific, proximate acts.
Key Judicial Precedents
| Case | Principle Laid Down |
|---|---|
| Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) | Abetment requires a clear mens rea and proximate cause leading to suicide. |
| Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) | Mere allegations of harassment without direct instigation do not constitute abetment. |
| S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar (2010) | The accused must have played an active role in the decision to commit suicide. |
| SC Judgment dated December 20, 2024 | To prove abetment, conduct must be so direct and compelling that the victim had no other option. |
| Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2025) | No conviction if there is no positive act of aiding or provoking suicide. |
The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for a live link between the accused’s acts and the suicide.
Application to the Present Case
In the present FIR:
-
The suicide note does not mention any specific act of instigation by the accused.
-
Some accused individuals did not personally know the deceased, eliminating the possibility of direct influence.
-
The suicide appears to be presented as a symbolic protest related to systemic issues like corruption and caste bias, not a response to targeted harassment.
-
General emotional or psychological distress, irrespective of its severity, does not amount to abetment unless linked to a clear, immediate act.
Therefore, based on established law, the FIR appears legally weak, particularly against Amneet P. Kumar and Amit Rattan.
Relevance to the Chandigarh FIR in IPS Puran Kumar’s Death
Similar legal questions arise in the FIR lodged in Chandigarh following the suicide of IPS officer Y. Puran Kumar, where 14 officers were named for alleged caste-based harassment spanning six to seven years. Legal experts note that:
-
Such long-term allegations lack proximity
-
Without a specific triggering incident, abetment cannot be sustained
However, where extortion allegations against Sushil Kumar appear to be the immediate trigger, scrutiny of his role will likely continue.
Conclusion
The threshold to establish abetment of suicide is legally high. It requires:
-
Specific, provable acts
-
Clear intention to provoke
-
Immediate proximity to the suicide
In the absence of these elements, criminal cases cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. Based on the facts currently emerging, the FIRs filed in both Rohtak and Chandigarh may face significant legal challenges when tested in court.

Comments
Post a Comment