Summary
A college student in Punjab was alleged to have misbehaved in class in 2008 while drunk. He was suspended from class and told to bring his parents, and the Principal required a refundable Rs 10,000 security deposit. He wrote an apology but then drowned himself in a canal, texting his brother that he loved his mother most and that his father should not be troubled. On the father's complaint, the teacher, the Head of Department and the Principal were charged under Section 306 IPC. The High Court refused to interfere. Calling the 14-year saga a punishment in itself, the Supreme Court discharged them. Even taking the charge sheet as true, nothing showed instigation or intentional aid with the mens rea required by Section 107. Ordinary disciplinary action needed to run an institution cannot be turned into abetment of suicide.
Issues
- Whether teachers and a principal who took disciplinary action against a student could be charged with abetment of his suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 107 and 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860Abetment requires instigation or intentional aid with clear mens rea and a positive act intended to push the deceased to suicide (S.S. Chheena, Ramesh Kumar, Sanju, Indrajit Kundu); none was disclosed by the charge sheet.
- Framing of charge (Sections 227-228), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The order framing charges and the High Court's cryptic refusal to interfere were set aside and the accused discharged.
Held
- The charge sheet merely reproduced the father's complaint, which had embellishments, cited no independent witness to the incident, and in light of the deceased's own apology letter did not, even if accepted as it stood, make out abetment of suicide.
- Instigation means goading or inciting with intent; words spoken in anger without intending the consequence, or legitimate disciplinary measures such as suspension, summoning parents and a refundable deposit, do not amount to abetment, and holding otherwise would make educational institutions unmanageable.
- The suicide message, asking that the father not be troubled, pointed elsewhere; a grieving father's anguish ought not to have been converted into a prosecution, and investigation and the trial court should have been more realistic.
Result
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2103-2105 of 2010 allowed; the order framing charges dated 16.04.2009 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated 30.04.2009 in Criminal Revision No. 1079 of 2009 set aside, and the accused discharged in FIR No. 62 of 2008; parties to bear their own costs.