Suicide in Nepal is a serious problem related to public health, social structure and legal system. Thousands of Nepalis commit suicide every year. Suicide is a tragic event, but a more serious situation arises when a person forces another person to choose the path of suicide by creating mental, social, financial or emotional pressure. This situation is defined by the law as ‘suicide abetment’.

The person committing suicide takes the final step himself, but if someone has continuously insulted, threatened, mentally tortured, socially excluded, financially exploited or emotionally harassed him to reach that decision, it is not just an incident of personal death – it becomes a matter of criminal liability.

The right to life is not just the right to physical existence, but also the right to live with dignity, security and peace of mind.  The Constitution of Nepal has granted every person the right to live with dignity. The right to life is not only the right to physical existence, but also the right to live with dignity, security and peace of mind. When someone’s behavior ends the hope for another person’s life and leads to suicide, such an act is a serious attack on the right to life.

In Nepal, abetment of suicide has been criminalized for the first time by the Criminal Code-2074 BS. According to Section 185 of the Criminal Code-2074 BS, abetment of suicide is the act of inciting, motivating, assisting or creating a situation where someone commits suicide. A person who commits such an offense can be imprisoned for up to five years and fined up to fifty thousand rupees. 

From a legal perspective, three elements are considered necessary to establish abetment of suicide.  First, suicide must have occurred.  Second, some act, behavior or harassment of the accused must have contributed to it.  Third, the intention of the accused, that is, the awareness or purpose that his actions could push the victim towards such a situation, must be proven.  This is why cases of abetment of suicide are considered more complex than ordinary criminal cases.  In most cases, the main witness, i.e. the victim, is not alive.  Therefore, the court must analyze the circumstantial evidence, messages, social behavior, the nature of the relationship, and the entire background of the incident.

According to the World Health Organization, more than 700,000 people commit suicide every year worldwide. This means that more than one person is ending their life every 40 seconds. Suicide is one of the leading causes of death among young people aged 15 to 29 worldwide.

According to Nepal Police statistics, more than 7,000 to 8,000 people have committed suicide annually in recent years. On average, more than 20 Nepalis commit suicide every day. People aged 16 to 40 are especially at high risk of suicide. Youth, family stress, marital disputes, unemployment, challenges of foreign employment, failed love relationships, exam stress, social pressure, and mental health problems are seen as the main reasons. In the digital age, the nature of suicide admonitions is also changing. Cyberbullying, social media insults, threats to release private photos, trolling, online character assassination and digital blackmail have left many people mentally vulnerable.

Suicide is generally seen as a personal act. However, the law does not fully accept this view. If a person is continuously mentally tortured, insulted, threatened, socially excluded or emotionally put in such a state that he sees no other option but suicide, then the person involved in it is also legally liable. Section 185 of the Nepali Criminal Code-2074 also provides for punishment for a person who encourages, incites or creates a situation for suicide. The basic philosophy of this system is that a person should be protected not only physically but also mentally. Words, behavior, insults and psychological pressure can also take lives.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Nepal has set an important precedent regarding abetment of suicide. The said precedent (Lalit Jagari v. Government of Nepal, Case No. 080-CR-0028) has made it clear that the charge of abetment of suicide cannot be established on the basis of mere conjecture, suspicion or emotional reaction. There must be a clear, close and logical connection between the conduct of the accused and the suicide. The Supreme Court has pointed out that ‘direct or indirect incitement’, ‘continuity of mental pressure’, ‘impact on the psychological state of the victim’, ‘chain of events’ and a thorough analysis of the motives of the accused are necessary to establish abetment of suicide.

This precedent has struck two important balances. On the one hand, it helps to ensure justice for the victims of genuine mental harassment. On the other hand, it also reduces the risk of criminalising an innocent person due to emotional reactions or family pressure following a person’s suicide.

Viewing abetment of suicide solely from the perspective of criminal punishment does not solve the problem – a multi-pronged strategy is required. First, mental health services should be expanded to every local level. Second, psychosocial counseling services should be made mandatory in schools and universities. Third, effective mechanisms should be created against domestic violence, cyberbullying, and emotional harassment. Fourth, legal reform is needed to clarify the judicial standards for incitement to suicide.