SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 10651

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J
MANSIBEN JITESHBHAI (VAISHNAV) ACHARYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 20822 of 2021



Advocates:
LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 with LEARNED ADVOCATE MS RHEA CHOKSHI MR.DIPEN F CHAUDHARI(6740) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA for the Respondent(s) No. 1

To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding the act, which was absent in this case.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 114 - Quashing of FIR - Applicants sought to quash FIR alleging abetment of suicide against college staff following a student's misconduct and subsequent suicide - Court found no evidence of harassment or instigation by applicants, emphasizing the absence of mens rea and the necessity of proving abetment under IPC - FIR quashed. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 15)

(B) Abetment of Suicide - Essential ingredients - To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding the act of suicide, which was not present in this case. (Paras 9, 10.1, 10.2)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, staff at a nursing college, were accused of abetting the suicide of a student who had a history of misconduct and was caught cheating during an exam. The FIR was filed four days after the incident, alleging harassment by the applicants. (Paras 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The court found no mens rea or instigation by the applicants, ruling that their actions were within the scope of maintaining discipline in the college. (Paras 10, 12)

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicants' actions constituted abetment of suicide and whether the FIR was filed with sufficient grounds. (Paras 9, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere disciplinary actions by educators do not amount to instigation for suicide unless there is clear evidence of intent to provoke such an act. (Paras 10.1, 10.2)

Result: Application allowed; FIR quashed.

ORAL ORDER

[1.0] RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocates waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties, present application is taken up for final hearing.

[2.0] By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11195019210939 of 2021 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC) and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

[3.0] Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot with learned advocate Ms.Rhea Chokshi for the applicants, learned APP Ms.Divyangana Jhala for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr.Dipen F. Chaudhary for respondent No.2 – original complainant.

[4.0] It is the case of the applicants that the applicants work at Bharat Nursing College in Rasana Mota, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha. The college offers education in nursing across three courses: Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM) spanning two years, General Nurse Midwifery (GNM) lasting three years, and a four- year B.Sc. Nursing program. Applicant No. 1 has served as the Principal for three years, while Applicant No. 2 holds the positions of professor and B.Sc. Nursing Class Coordinator. It is notable that the B.Sc. Nursing examination is conducted annually. Paresh Punjabhai Suthar, brother of respondent No. 2, was a Second Year B.Sc. Nursing student. It is pertinent to mention that Paresh Suthar had a history of disruptive behavior, irregular attendance, misconduct with peers, and non-payment of college fees. He had previously apologized to the college for his actions. The Pre-Final Exam for the Second Year took place in late August 2021, including a subject called CET (Communication Education Technology) held on August 27, 2021, from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm. Before the exam, Paresh Suthar managed to acquire a key to the room where the question papers and answer sheets were stored. On the morning of August 27, 2021, unstamped answer sheets were distributed due to time constraints, contrary to usual practice. During the exam, faculty member Kaushik Parmar, acting as supervisor in Class Room No. 1, discovered that Darshan Joshi's answer sheet bore the college's stamp, despite the unstamped sheets being distributed. Upon investigation, it was found that within ten minutes of receiving the paper, Darshan Joshi had completed detailed answers to all questions. Upon discovering similar incidents involving Mihir Parmar and Paresh Suthar in Class Room No. 2, all three students were escorted to the Principal's ofÏce (applicant No. 1). Subsequently, their parents were contacted due to the seriousness of the situation. Paresh Suthar admitted to having obtained and distributed the stolen question papers and answer sheets to the other students, Mihir Parmar and Darshan Joshi. All three students apologized for their actions. The applicants assert that the deceased was never harassed by any college staff, as evidenced by CCTV footage provided to the investigating agency. However, respondent No. 2 filed a delayed FIR alleging baseless accusations against the applicants. The informant claims to be the brother of the deceased and alleges that on August 27, 2021, applicant No. 2, acting as an exam supervisor, caught Paresh Suthar, Darshan Joshi, and Mihir Parmar cheating, leading to them being taken to applicant No. 1's ofÏce. Allegedly, applicant No. 2 slapped Paresh Suthar and made threatening remarks, which the informant suggests led to the deceased's suicide after being suspended. The applicants maintain that they acted responsibly upon discovering the exam irregularities, as any educational institution would. They approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail (Criminal Misc. Applic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top