Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Allegation against appellant was that the son of the complainant committed suicide due to mental harassment meted out by the appellant – Appellant was physical Training Teacher in the school where complainant’s son was student – Appellant was also assigned responsibility for maintaining overall discipline by the students of the school – The allegations in the FIR was that the appellant had harassed and insulted her son in the presence of everyone due to which he was under deep mental pressure and committed suicide – High Court dismissed s. 482 application for quashing the FIR – Hence the instant appeal – Held: To constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under s.306 IPC, there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide – In the FIR and as also the statement of the complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for the appellant to harass and insult the victim were spelled out nor there were any details with respect to any action on the part of the appellant by which the deceased boy might have felt being harassed and insulted – Appellant in his petition under s.482 before the High Court set out detailed facts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failed to even take notice of much less analyse the same before coming to the conclusion – It was also stated therein that the victim, school student, generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by the appellant and other school staff a number of times – Persistent act of bunking classes was reported to the Principal of the School, who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school – A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate 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 – No further overt act was attributed to the appellant either in the FIR or in the statement of the complainant, nor anything in this regard was stated in the alleged suicide note – Thus, no mens rea can be attributed – In the absence of the element of abetment missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under s.306 IPC do not exist – All these facts were clearly ignored by the High Court while mechanically dismissing the petition under s.482 CrPC on the ground that FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence – High Court was not justified in dismissing the application under s.482 CrPC for quashing the FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Scope of – Held: 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 – However, 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. Penal Code, 1860: s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Essential ingredients – There must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence 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.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. An attempt to suicide is considered to be an offence under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. Though, the IPC does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from a modern latin word ‘suicidium’ , ‘sui’ means ‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means ‘killing’. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of ‘selfkilling’. In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16][402-G; 403-B-C, G-H]
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247; S.S.Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190 : [2010]
9 SCR 1111; Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 427; M. Arjunan v. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019)
17 SCC 301 : [2019] 9 SCR 703; Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr. (2019) 13 SCC 598 : [2018] 14 SCR 232 – relied on.
2. What is required 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 offence 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. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased. [Para 22][408-E-G]
3. The FIR recites that victim boy was under deep mental pressure because the appellant had harassed and insulted him in the presence of everyone and he was not willing to go to school on 25.04.2018 but was persuaded to go to school by the complainant. When he returned from the school, again he was under very much pressure and on being enquired told that today again he was harassed and insulted by the appellant. The boy was informed that the parents have been called to school next day and this brought him under further severe pressure and tension. In the First Information Report and as also the statement of the complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for the appellant to harass and insult the victim are spelled out nor there are any details with respect to any action on the part of the appellant by which the deceased boy might have felt being harassed and insulted. [Paras 24, 25][409-A-D]
4. The appellant in his petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court has set out detailed facts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failed to even take notice of much less analyse the same before coming to the conclusion. It was stated in the petition that as a PT Teacher, he was imparting Physical Training to the students from 1st to 5th standard and being a member of the Disciplinary Committee, was also charged with the duty of maintaining discipline in the school which included keeping a watch upon students and oversee that they are attending the classes instead of bunking the same and moving around in the school premises without permission. It was also stated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by the appellant and other school staff a number of times. On 19.04.2018, he was caught by the appellant bunking classes and moving around the school campus without any cause or permission and a warning was given to him. On 25.04.2018, he was caught bunking classes and again the appellant issued him a warning and reported the same to the Principal of the School, who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school. [Para 26][409-D-G]
5. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason. A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under 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 a suicide by a student. 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 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. Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularly bunking classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeated acts, brought this fact to the knowledge of the Principal, who called the parents on telephone to come to the school. No further overt act has been attributed to the appellant either in the First Information Report or in the statement of the complainant, nor anything in this regard has been stated in the alleged suicide note. The alleged suicide note only records insofar as, the appellant is concerned, ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’. Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute any act or instigation on the part of the appellant to connect him with the offence for which he is being charged. [Paras 27, 28, 29] [409-G-H; 410-A-F]
6. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an act of indiscipline and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice of Principal of the institution who conveyed to the parents of the student for the purposes of school discipline and correcting a child, any student who is very emotional or sentimental commits suicide, the said teacher cannot be held liable for the same and charged and tried for the offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC. Considering the facts that the appellant holds a post of a teacher and any act done in discharge of his moral or legal duty without their being any circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was any intention on his part to abet the commission of suicide by one of his own pupil, no mens rea can be attributed. In the absence of the element of abetment missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under section 306 IPC do not exist. All these facts have been clearly ignored by the High Court while mechanically dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. [Paras 30, 32, 33][410-F-H; 411-A-C]
7. 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. However, 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. [Para 34][411-C-E]
8. The suicide note is rhetoric document, penned down by an immature mind. A reading of the same also suggests the hypersensitive temperament of the deceased which led him to take such an extra-ordinary step, as the alleged reprimand by the accused, who was his teacher, otherwise would not ordinarily induce a similarly circumstanced student to commit suicide. [Para 39][414-C]
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 692 : [1988] 2 SCR 930; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335:[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; M/s.Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122:[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR
790 – relied on.
9. In the absence of any material on record even, primafacie, in the FIR or statement of 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 think 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. Thus, it would be travesty of justice, to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience and the appellant who is a teacher would certainly suffer great prejudice, if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. The High Court was not justified in dismissing the application under section 482 CrPC for quashing the First Information Report in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. [Paras 40, 41, 42][414-D-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.