The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principle that mere refusal to marry cannot be equated with abetting suicide under Indian law. It was based on a case wherein the tragic suicide of a woman left behind a dying declaration impinging her partner as liableThe case is from the death of a young woman who had ended her life which reportedly due to her partner's refusal to marry her. The deceased stated her case but did not allege any sexual exploitation or physical relationship under the false promise of marriage. The family of the deceased accused the partner of abetment, citing emotional distress caused by his unwillingness to marry her. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. The High Court affirmed the conviction also which appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court's Observations A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court considered the facts and evidence in depth and insisted that there must be either direct or indirect intent to commit suicide for a conviction under Section 306 IPC. The Court highlighted that: Dying Declaration: The deceased's dying declaration did not contain any allegations of coercion, abuse or sexual exploitation under false pretenses. It was therefore more of emotional conflict through unmet expectations of marriage. Lack of Mens Rea: In abatement of suicide, there must clearly be evidence of instigating or participating in such an act of suicide. Only emotional conflict does not support the legal requirement. Nature of Relationship. The Court found this problem in modern relations, yet it held an unkept promise of marriage does not itself establish abetment in absence of further elements such as exploitation and fraud. The Supreme Court dismissed the conviction, holding that the refusal to marry was not an act of abetment. The Court held that without proof of instigation as well as malice in mens rea also criminal liability under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be saddled..