1. Student committed suicide following disciplinary action by college authorities for misconduct — Complaint filed under Section 306, IPC for abetment of suicide. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1736
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
V.P. Singh Etc. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2103 of 2010 with Crl. A. No. 2104 of 2010 and Crl. A. No. 2105 of 2010
Decided On : 24-11-2022
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Rajpoot, Advocate, Petitioner-in-person, For the Appellant / Ms. Rooh-E-Hina Dua, Advocate, Mr. Harshit K., Advocate, Mr. Prem Malhotra, Advocate, Respondent-in-person, For the Respondent.
Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Advocate, Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Rajpoot, Advocate, Petitioner-in-person, For the Appellant / Ms. Rooh-E-Hina Dua, Advocate, Mr. Harshit K., Advocate, Mr. Prem Malhotra, Advocate, Respondent-in-person, For the Respondent.
Important Points
The judgment established the requirement of a clear mens rea and active instigation for conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, emphasizing the difficulty in establishing abetment of suicide.
Subject
Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Justice System - Abetment of Suicide - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 306 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where a student was reprimanded for misconduct in college, leading to disciplinary action and a subsequent suicide. The accused were charged with abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to support the charge of abetment of suicide. It emphasized the lack of necessary ingredients to establish the offence and highlighted the importance of maintaining discipline in educational institutions.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused could be held liable for abetment of suicide in the context of disciplinary action taken against the deceased student.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a clear mens rea and active instigation to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC. It highlighted the difficulty in establishing abetment of suicide and the importance of considering the surrounding facts and circumstances.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order framing charges and discharged the accused in respect of the FIR. The appeals were allowed, and each party was left to bear their own costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Allegation that disciplinary actions and harsh words by college authorities instigated the suicide — Contention that actions were legitimate disciplinary measures to ensure campus discipline. (Para 6 , 11 )
3. Legitimate disciplinary action in educational institutions lacks the necessary mens rea for abetment; no evidence of a positive act to incite suicide exists on record. (Para 6 , 12 , 18 , 19 )
4. Conviction under Section 306, IPC requires clear mens rea and a positive act intended to push the deceased into a position to commit suicide. (Para 14 , 16 )
5. Order framing charges set aside and accused discharged. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. What constitutes abetment of suicide under Section 306, IPC?
Abetment requires a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person. There must be a clear mens rea and a positive or direct act intended to push the deceased into a position where they commit suicide. (Para 14 )
7. Does a statement made in anger or a remark that a person's death would not matter amount to instigation?
No. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to follow, or a statement that a person's death would not make a difference, does not amount to instigation in the absence of mens rea. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. Can legitimate disciplinary action by educational authorities be construed as abetment of suicide?
No. Basic disciplinary action necessary for running an institute, even if perceived as harsh, does not constitute abetment unless there is a clear intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the person to commit suicide. (Para 6 , 18 )
ORDER
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. - The criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment! It is exactly what has happened in this case. 14 years on an issue of abetment of suicide in an episode where a student was reprimanded for misconduct in the College and on endeavor to take disciplinary action and call the father, though the parent did not turn up and subsequently the child committed suicide. An unfortunate situation! However, we are concerned with the issue whether there is any element of an abetment to suicide in the present case which was at the threshold of charges having been framed.
2. On 16.4.2008, the deceased viz. Mr. Gaurav Wahi was attending the last lecture under Mr. Nitin Shyam, one of the accused, and is alleged to have misbehaved with him in the class under the influence of alcohol. When Mr. Shyam asked Mr. Gaurav to leave the class, he ran out of the class. This incident was reported by Mr. Nitin Shyam to Mr. Sarabjit Singh, the acting Head of the Department. The incident was reported in writing by Mr. Nitin Shyam on the next date i.e. 17.4.2008 to the then Head of the Department. An order was passed suspending the deceased from the class and calling upon him to call his parents as an exercise of legitimate disciplinary action.
3. To redeem himself, Mr. Gaurav Wahi, the deceased wrote a letter of apology to the Head of the Department on 21.4.2008 in a way accepting the incident but denying that he was under the influence of alcohol. On 23.4.2008, the Principal, Mr. V. P. Singh issued a notice whereby he directed action against two students including the deceased in separate incidents calling for a security amount of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the College as security deposit as a disciplinary exercise and to bring the parents to the office. This deposit was to be refunded at the end of completion of course.
4. Unfortunately the deceased, instead of complying with the disciplinary action, chose to take his own life by jumping in the canal. Before doing so, he sent an SMS to his brother viz. Mr. Himmat Wahi. The purport of the message when translated into English and even read in the original language, was an intimation that he was jumping into the deep side of the river. He stated that amongst all, he loved his mother the most and wanted his father not to be troubled. The obvious purport of this is that while he was closest to his mother, he sought to anticipate that his father may be blamed for the episode and that the father should not be troubled by it.
5. On the complaint of the father, an FIR No.62 of 2008 was registered at P.S. Sardar Rupnagar District, Punjab on 29.4.2008 under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the complaint that the said suicide was instigated by the three accused i.e. the teacher, the Head of the Department and the Principal.
6. It is interesting to note that on the bail application on 06.8.2008, one of the factors which weighed with the High Court while granting bail was that the conduct could not be construed to make the accused liable for offence under Section 306 of IPC as it was to ensure discipline in the class and the campus and even if the teachers are stated to be acting harshly, it could not be said that they wanted to incite, urge or provoke the deceased to commit suicide.
7. On investigation the charge sheet was filed on 13.9.2008 and charges were framed on 16.4.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, three accused preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 30.4.2009 with a cryptic order only stating that the proceedings were at an early stage and did not call for any interference.
8. The present appeals were preferred assailing that order and interim stay was granted at the threshold. The trial of course naturally did not proceed in view of the stay by this Court. The matter has rested at that for the last thirteen years!
9. In the present appeal proceedings, the appellants were called upon to file the complete records of the
