Abetment of Suicide - A teacher cannot be held liable for offence of abetment of suicide if he reprimands for his behaviour and indiscipline.

    

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  allowed the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Branch) by setting aside the judgment and also quashing the First Information Report, against him for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, stating that the sympathies for pain and suffering we have for the deceased’s  mother, cannot translate into a legal remedy. The deceased had died by committing suicide leaving behind a suicide note which name specifically appellant’s name in the note.

The High Court had dismissed the application of the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973, on the ground that there is a proximate nexus in the harassment and suicide and thus a prima facie case for alleged cognizable offence is made out against the appellant on the basis of the FIR that discloses the name of the appellant.

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ mother of deceased boy submitted that the FIR clearly make out that appellant’s direct and indirect act of humiliation, harassment led the deceased boy to commit suicide.

He further submitted that the question of mens rea attributable to the appellant cannot be established in the appeal stage when the investigation is yet to be completed.

The Court said –  “To constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.

 The Supreme Court said a teacher cannot  be held liable for the offence of abetment of suicide of his student, who is very emotional or sentimental, if he reprimanded his student for an act of indiscipline and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice of the Principal for the purpose of  correcting a child.

“A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behavior or indiscipline, who is under a moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would  definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of suicide by a student” – Supreme Court observed.

It is not only a moral duty of a teacher but one of the legally assigned duty under Section 24(e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to hold a regular meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise them about the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other act or relevant information about the child - Supreme Court.

The High Court has erred in not allowing the petition and not taking notice of the detailed  facts and circumstances set out by the appellant in his petition under Section 482 Cr.PC that,  he being the PT teacher for imparting physical training teacher  and also a member of Disciplinary Committee for maintaining discipline in the school which included keeping a watch upon the student and oversee that they are attending the classes instead of bunking the same and moving around in the school premises without permission. The victim generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by the appellant and other school staff several times. On the fateful day  he was caught bunking classes and the same was reported to the Principal of the school, who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school.

Therefore, considering the facts that the appellant holds a post of a teacher and also member of disciplinary committee, any act done in the discharge of his moral and legal duty without there being any intention on his part to abet the commission of suicide by one his pupil, no mens rea can be attributed.

The Supreme Court observed on the facts on record that after the suicide of his student  no further over act has been attributed to the appellant in the FIR or in the statement of the complainant/deceased mother nor anything in this regard has been stated in the alleged suicide note.

All  the facts have been ignored by the High Court while deciding the petition under  Section 482 Cr.PC simply because the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

The Supreme Court set aside the  unsustainable judgment of the High Court and quashed the FIR on the following observations:

•  The suicide note is rhetoric document penned down by the immature mind and the same suggest the hyper- sensitive temperament of the deceased that lead him to take such a step as the alleged reprimand by the accused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily induce a similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide.

•  In the absence of any material on record even prima facie, in the FIR or the complainant, pointing out any such circumstances showing any such act or intention that he intended to bring about the suicide of his student, it would be absurd to even that the appellant had any intention to place the deceased in such circumstances that there was no option available to him except to commit suicide.

•   In the absence of any specific allegation and material of definite nature, not imaginary or inferential one, it would be travesty of justice, to ask the appellant-accused to face trial.

In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315,  a two-Judge Bench of this Court has expounded the ingredients of Section 306 IPC in the following words:-

“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself,constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed the following – undoubtedly  every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

 

Before parting with the judgments, the Supreme Court thought relevant to note the previous observations of the same Court .

In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors, (1977) 2 SCC 699 it was observed –the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

 

In the case of M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122,  this Court observed as under :-

“It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.”

 Case: 

Geo Verghese vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Criminal Appeal no. 1164 of 2021

Coram: 

S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice And Krishna Murari, Justice.

DOJ: 5.10.2021.

Download PDF