Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Ori) 193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Ayusmanta Sarangi – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha – Opposite Party
CRLREV No.584 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Gyanaranjan Mohapatra, ASC

Mens rea must be evident for abetment of suicide under IPC; mere disciplinary actions do not constitute instigation without specific intent or severe psychological harassment.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 294, 306, 34 - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 227, 228, 397 - Discharge of accused - Rejection of discharge petition by trial court - Accused alleged to have abetted suicide of student - Court emphasized necessity of mens rea for establishing abetment - Court found no sufficient evidence linking accused to instigation or aid in committing suicide, leading to discharge of accused. (Paras 1, 3, 21, 30, 37, 39)

(B) Charge and Discharge - The court noted that during the charge framing stage, it must establish only a prima facie case against the accused and cannot delve into evidence beyond the FIR at this step. The absence of a strong suspicion nullified the trial court's denial of the discharge application. (Paras 4, 6, 11, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Principal of a college, faced allegations of abetting the suicide of a student, purportedly by causing psychological distress through administrative actions after a theft incident. The deceased had reportedly consumed poison following threats implied by his roommates and faculty regarding potential disciplinary action. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while the Principal's duty included ensuring student safety, actions taken were legitimate disciplinary measures rather than instigation to suicide, reinforcing that legal action cannot occur without substantial evidence of intent or culpability. (Paras 23, 34-35)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner’s actions could be deemed as instigation for suicide under IPC, and whether the trial court’s dismissal of the discharge petition was justified. (Paras 21, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that mere disciplinary actions or harsh remarks do not fulfill the threshold for instigating suicide unless accompanied by specific intent or severe harassment warranting prosecution; thus, the evidence was insufficient for trial. (Paras 6, 22-30)

Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was discharged.

Table of Content
1. summary of prosecution's case. (Para 2)
2. revisionist's arguments for innocence. (Para 3)
3. discussion on law of charge and discharge. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's analysis on the role of the principal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
5. absence of evidence leads to discharge. (Para 30 , 31)
6. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 34 , 37 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision challenging the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge (Special) for Womens Court, Bargarh in CT No.84/23 rejecting discharge petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section(s) 294/306/34 of IPC .

I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The prosecution’s case can be summarized as follows :

(i). Rajesh Sahu (“the deceased”), a 17 year old student at Dadhibaman College, Bhatli, resided in the hostel alongside two fellow students, Pitabash Sahu (“Accused No.1”) and Pritam Sahu (“Accused No.3”). On 18.02.2019, one of the hostel residents, Bidyadhar Seth, celebrated his birthday on the hostel block’s upper floor, joined by Rajesh and other boarders. Following the celebration, when all the boarders returned to their rooms, it was discovered that a cell phone belonging to one Ajaya Pradhan had been stolen. This incident sparked a heated exchange of words among the boarders, which caught the attention of the hostel warden, Subrat Sarangi who then reported the matter to the Principal.

(ii). Subsequently, on 20.02.2019, a meeting was convened by the Ayusmanta Sarangi (“the Petitioner”)/ the Principal of Dadhibaman College, to address the issue, during which the boys were cautioned, though they denied any involvement in the theft. Consequently, it was decided that their respective guardians would be summoned to the college. Meanwhile, the deceased’s roommates, Pitabash and Pritam, allegedly frightened him by suggesting that the college authorities were preparing to take strict action against the wrongdoers. Under the duress and influence of both the college superintendent and his roommates, Rajesh ingested poison. He was promptly taken to various medical facilities, starting from the clinic of Dr. Sunil Achrya, then to DHH Baragarh, followed by VIMSAR Burla, and ultimately to AMRI Hospital in Bhubaneswar, where heeventually passed away. Accordingly, a complaint dated 24.02.2019 was registered vide Khandagiri PS UD Case No.59 of 2019.

(iii). During the treatment and eventual demise of Rajesh at AMRI Hospital, his father, Durlabha Sahu, lodged a written report on 25.02.2019. The informant alleges that during the treatment, his son disclosed to him that Subrat Sarangi (“Accused No.2”) had verbally abused him and instructed him to consume poison or face death. On the same day, at around 10:00 PM, the son reportedly confided in the informant’s brother, Padamolochan Sahu, detailing the alleged abuse and coercion by the aforementioned Botany lecturer. The report suggests a premeditated murder attempt and accuses the petitioner of involvement in the suicide. In response to the informant’s allegations, the IIC, Bhatli Police registered Case No.37 of 2019, citing violations of Sections 323 /294/306/302/506/34 of the IPC .

(iv). After registration of the FIR police started investigation and made some arrests. Petitioner was released by this Court on pre-arrest bail. After completion of investigation in the aforesaid case, the police has filed charge sheet against the present petitioner and another accused for the commission of offences under Sections 294 /306/34 of the IPC .

II. REVISIONIST’S ARGUMENTS :

3. The counsel for the revisionist urged the following submissions:

(i). The petitioner is innocent and does not have any role in the alleged offences committed against the deceased.

(ii). The impugned order is the outcome of complete non-application of judicial mind and as such the same has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

(iii). The simp