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

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6453

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
ALEYAMMA MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
SINDHU LALJI – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7239 OF 2016 | SC 321/2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.), SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN, SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SRI.E.NARAYANAN, SMT.K.K.PREETHA, SRI.ARAVIND V.MATHEW

Disciplinary actions by teachers do not constitute abetment of suicide without evidence of intention to instigate, lacking mens rea necessary for charges under Section 305 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 323, 506(i), 305 read with Section 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioners, teachers, sought to quash charges related to the suicide of a 12-year-old student, asserting no mens rea for alleged offences. - The court found that the petitioners' actions, although potentially excessive, were aimed at enforcing discipline and did not meet the threshold for abetment of suicide under Section 305, as no intention to instigate such a drastic action could be inferred - Allegations of harassment were deemed insufficient for establishing culpability under the IPC provisions invoked. (Paras 3, 11, 13, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The case arises from the tragic suicide of a 12-year-old student at Bishop Moor Vidyapeedam School. The petitioners, comprising the Principal, Vice Principal, and a teacher, were accused of causing the student's suicide through disciplinary actions involving allegations of copying during examinations, intimidation, and excessive reprimands. The student had expressed fear about potential repercussions, leading to her tragic decision to take her own life.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the allegations against the petitioners lacked evidence of mens rea and were merely reflective of disciplinary measures. No directions or actions by the teachers demonstrated an intention to instigate the child's suicide. Thus, charges under Sections 305, 341, 323, and 506 of IPC could not be sustained.

Issues: The central issue was whether the actions of the petitioners could be interpreted as abetting the victim's suicide under Section 305 IPC, necessitating a clear deliberate intention to provoke the act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that mere disciplinary actions or reprimand by teachers do not equate to abetment unless there is direct evidence of intention to instigate suicide. The threshold of 'mens rea' must be established for any charges to apply under Section 305 IPC, which was not present in this case.

Result: Crl.M.C. allowed; all further proceedings against the petitioners quashed.

Table of Content
1. summary of the case and individuals involved. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioners argue against allegations made. (Para 2 , 6 , 7)
3. court addresses legal definitions and requirements for abetment. (Para 5 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court reviews intent and relationship between accused and victim. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. crl.mc allowed; no charges warranted. (Para 16)

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in SC No.321/2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court I, Alappuzha. The aforesaid Sessions case arises from Crime No.1256/2013 of Mavelikkara Police Station and the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 34 1, 323, 506(i), 305 read with of IPC .

2. This Crl.MC. is filed by the petitioners seeking for an order to quash all further proceedings in the above Sessions Case, on the ground that none of the offences alleged against them are made out, even if the entire allegations contained in Annexure B final report are accepted for its face value.

3. The facts of the case reveal an unfortunate event of suicide of a girl aged just 12 years. The prosecution case is that, the deceased student was studying at Bishop Moor Vidyapeedam School at Mavelikkara in VIIth standard, where the petitioners are the teachers. The 1st petitioner is the Principal, the 2nd petitioner is the teacher and the 3rd petitioner is the Vice Principal of the said school. On 09.09.2013 while quarterly examination was being conducted at the school, the deceased child secretly communicated the answer of one the questions to another student (CW2). When this came to the notice of the 4th accused, who was the invigilator, she had taken the deceased student along with other three students who are CWs 2,3 and 4 to the office room of the 3rd accused. While so, the 3rd accused told the students that those who were caught for copying will be given zero marks. The children were directed by the 3rd accused to meet the Principal/1st accused on the next day and informed that they will be permitted to attend examination only thereafter. The next examination was on 11.09.2013 and when the students went to meet the Principal she was on leave that day. The students were permitted to write examination on that day and they again came to meet the Principal on the next day; on 12.09.2013. When they met the Principal, she forcibly removed the hair band of the deceased child and compelled her to tie her hair by using a ribbon. She has also said that all of the students will be issued with Transfer Certificate (T.C.) and in the report the fact of copying will be mentioned so that none of the students will get admission in any of the schools. They were all asked to bring their parents to the school on the next day. Unfortunately, the deceased child who got frightened due to the aforesaid incidents committed suicide immediately after reaching her house by setting herself fire by pouring kerosene. A dying declaration of the deceased student was also recorded, wherein the aforesaid incidents are mentioned. It is also stated by the deceased student that she attempted to commit suicide, as she was called to bring her parents. She also stated that the Principal threatened to hit her.

4. The aforesaid crime was registered on the basis of the same and after completing the investigation, Police filed Annexure B charge sheet. Now the matter is pending as S.C.No.321/2016 before the Additional Sessions Court I, Alappuzha.

5. Heard Sri.M.Revikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Digna David, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/the de facto complainant/mother of the deceased child and Sri.Aravind V. Mathew, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the none of the offences alleged against them are attracted. As regard to the offence under Section 305 of IPC is concerned, under no circumstance the acts alleged against the petitioners herein would indicate mens rea on their part which is one

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top