The Supreme Court looked at the issue of whether such refusal to marry by a man after promising to marry him and rejecting his promise may constitute an abetment of suicide as provided in the Section 306 IPC. The deceased was also an advocate of the government and had relationship with the appellant who had the desire to get married, however, his family did not agree with the marriage. The deceased took poison and died under emotional distress due to this conflict. Her mother claimed that the refusal to marry and the so-called exploitation was an abetment. The Court further determined that in order to prove the applicability of Section 306 IPC there need to be clear instigation, incitement, or intentional aid as it is construed under Section 107 IPC. Instigation involves active encouragement, that is, goading or provoking and leaving the victim with no alternative other than committing suicide. Simple unwillingness or refusal to get married, following intimacy or family pressure does not qualify to this standard. The appellant did not actually intend suicide and did not also do anything to force a suicide. The Supreme Court, on discovering that there was no evidence of mens rea or instigation, aborted the proceedings and described the proceeding as a travesty of justice to continue.