The court held that mere inquiry by a teacher regarding a student's misconduct does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 305 IPC, as there was no mens rea or inducement.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 305 - Abetment of suicide - Revisionist, a lecturer and rector, sought discharge from charges of abetting suicide of a student - Court found no mens rea or prima facie evidence of abetment - Inquiry conducted by revisionist was a duty, not inducement - Essential ingredients for Section 305 IPC not met. (Paras 1, 4, 20)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Scope of Section 227 - Court must sift evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists - If two views are possible, discharge is warranted. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The revisionist was accused of abetting the suicide of a student who jumped from the hostel terrace after being questioned about a stolen ATM card. The inquiry conducted by the revisionist was deemed a necessary disciplinary action.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the revisionist's actions did not constitute abetment as there was no evidence of mens rea or inducement.

Issues: The main issues were whether the revisionist's inquiry constituted abetment of suicide and if there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the revisionist's inquiry was a duty and did not amount to abetment, emphasizing the absence of mens rea.

Result: The Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

ORDER :

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

1. Revisionist herein takes exception to the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur below application Exhibit 51, in Sessions Case No. 153 of 2021, thereby rejecting prayer for discharge sought under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

2. Appraising this Court regarding background of indictment of present revisionist, it is pointed out that, one Mubarak Mahamad Bargir lodged report, resulting into registration of crime on 19.07.2018, narrating that his daughter Nilofar, who was a student of 11^th Standard, committed suicide by jumping from the terrace of institution. Learned counsel pointed out that apart from present revisionist, in all five persons are named as accused. That, present revisionist, who is a lecturer and also rector of the hostel, is impleaded as accused no.1.

3. It is pointed out that in short, case of prosecution is that, deceased Nilofar, who was put up in a hostel, had an affair with juvenile accused Ruturaj. That, ATM card of room-mate of deceased Nilofar, namely, Gayatri, was reported to be stolen. In the capacity of teacher and rector and on directions of Supervisor, revisionist had made inquiries with Nilofar. That, during inquiry, it was revealed that deceased had handed over ATM card of Gayatri to her boyfriend Ruturaj and he withdrew Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, present revisionist had called said boy, room-mate Gayatri as well as Nilofar and had made inquiries with them, and in the capacity of rector, he had sought say of each of them in writing. That, deceased objected to taking anything in writing from her boyfriend Ruturaj, accepted responsibility and when revisionist informed that parents of deceased Nilofar would be required to be called, she too refused to give any written apology. The Revisionist left inside the chamber. Shortly thereafter, when only deceased was left in the waiting room, she went towards terrace and allegedly jumped and attempted to commit suicide. Learned counsel pointed out that she unfortunately expired on 19.07.2018 while undergoing treatment and thereafter, Mubarak Mohamad Bargir, father of deceased Nilofar, lodged report naming present revisionist and others responsible for the suicide and hence, crime for offence under Section 305 r/w 34 of IPC has been registered.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that apparently, from the very FIR, only material against revisionist is that in the capacity of rector, on receipt of complaint about loss of ATM card, he had conducted inquiry, which revealed ATM card being taken by deceased, who was a room-mate of Gayatri, and it was given to her boyfriend who used the same. Being in-charge of hostel and in the capacity of teacher, he performed his duty. There was no mens rea. Learned counsel submitted that only when he informed deceased that her parents would be required to be summoned and after leaving the waiting room, and while he was in the chamber of co-accused Omkar, he got the news that Nilofar jumped. Thus, according to learned counsel, there is no element of inducement or abetment to commit suicide, which are sine qua non for attracting the charge.

5 Learned counsel pointed out that the boy with whom she was in relationship, had also, in presence of revisionist, questioned deceased for not informing him that ATM card belonged to Gayatri and further said that she ought not to have done so. That, except such evidence in the entire charge, there is no iota of evidence. Making revisionist face trial in absence of even a prima facie case, would subject him to face the ordeal of trial for no reason and hence, prayers are raised for allowing the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment.

6. Learned counsel pointed out that learned trial court failed to appreciate the requirement of essential ingredients for attracting the charge and in absence of any evidence and without assigning sound reasons, rejected the application. Hence, he prays for indulgence at the hands of this Court.

Learned