Supreme Court Quashes Abetment of Suicide Charges Against Teacher: Geo V Arghese vs. State of Rajasthan (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 October 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 682

Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can a teacher be held responsible for abetment of suicide if a student, reprimanded for indiscipline, takes their own life? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a physical training instructor accused of abetting a student’s suicide. The court examined whether the teacher’s actions constituted abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The two-judge bench, consisting of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari, delivered the judgment, with Justice Krishna Murari authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 2016, the appellant was appointed as a Physical Training Teacher at St. Xavier’s School, Nevta, where he taught students from 1st to 5th standard. He was also a member of the Disciplinary Committee. On April 26, 2018, a 9th-grade student at the school tragically committed suicide. The student’s mother filed a First Information Report (FIR) on May 2, 2018, alleging that her son had been mentally harassed by the appellant, leading to his suicide. The FIR stated that on April 19, 2018, the deceased had informed his mother that the appellant had harassed and insulted him in front of others. On April 25, 2018, the school called the parents to come to school the next day. The FIR further stated that when the child returned from school on April 25, 2018, he was under pressure and told his mother that the appellant had again harassed and insulted him. The child was found hanging in his room at 4:00 AM on April 26, 2018. A suicide note was recovered from his room.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which sought to quash the FIR. The High Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses abetment of suicide.

Section 306 of the IPC states:

“306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the IPC:

“107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.—Whoever either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that a plain reading of the FIR does not disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute an offense of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.
• The appellant asserted that there was no material to suggest that he abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.
• The appellant highlighted that the suicide note did not attribute any act of instigation on his part. The note contained the words, ‘THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL’.
• The appellant contended that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.
• The appellant stated that as a PT teacher and member of the Disciplinary Committee, he was responsible for maintaining discipline, which included ensuring students attended classes. He had warned the deceased for bunking classes and reported this to the Principal, who then informed the parents.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State of Rajasthan argued that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense, and the suicide note specifically mentioned the appellant’s name.
• The State contended that the appellant had harassed the deceased from April 19, 2018, until April 24, 2018, and that the deceased committed suicide after being called by the Principal on April 25, 2018, due to the appellant’s complaint.
• The complainant argued that the appellant’s acts of humiliation and harassment led the deceased to commit suicide.
• The complainant submitted that the question of mens rea could not be established at the stage when the investigation was yet to be completed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

✓ Whether the allegations in the FIR and the suicide note, even if taken at face value, constitute the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

✓ Whether the actions of the appellant, a teacher, in reprimanding the student for indiscipline, amount to instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618:* The court used this case to define the term “instigate” and emphasized that it means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage an act.

✓ S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190:* The court relied on this case to highlight that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person to commit suicide, requiring a positive act and clear mens rea.

✓ Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 427:* The court cited this case to reiterate that the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash an FIR if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offense.

✓ M. Arjunan Vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315:* The court used this case to expound on the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC, noting that mere insulting language does not constitute abetment of suicide.

✓ Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301:* The court referred to this case to elucidate that there must be proof of direct or indirect incitement to suicide, and mere harassment is insufficient unless the actions compel the person to commit suicide.

✓ Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr., (2019) 13 SCC 598:* The court distinguished this case, noting that it involved specific allegations of continuous harassment and a suicide note implicating the accused, unlike the present case.

✓ State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors., (1977) 2 SCC 699:* The court cited this case to emphasize that the High Court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.

✓ Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Anr. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 692:* The court used this case to support the view that proceedings can be quashed if the allegations do not prima facie establish the offense or if the chances of conviction are bleak.

✓ State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335:* The court referred to this case to outline the categories of cases where inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

✓ M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 122:* The court cited this case to support the view that proceedings can be quashed if no offense is disclosed by the complaint.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that for an offense under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a clear act of instigation or intentional aid that leads to the commission of suicide. The court noted that the FIR lacked specific details of harassment or insult by the teacher. The court also considered the fact that the teacher was performing his duty to maintain discipline and that the suicide note did not attribute any act of instigation to the teacher. The court found that the deceased might have been hypersensitive, and the teacher’s actions would not ordinarily induce a similarly situated person to commit suicide. The court also stressed that a teacher cannot be held liable for abetment of suicide if a student, who is very emotional or sentimental, commits suicide after being reprimanded for indiscipline. The court concluded that the necessary element of abetment was missing.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, finding no evidence of any act or intention on the teacher’s part to abet the commission of suicide. The court emphasized that a teacher’s duty to maintain discipline should not be misconstrued as abetment of suicide.

The court’s decision was that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute abetment of suicide. The court reasoned that the teacher’s actions were part of his duty to maintain discipline, and there was no evidence of any intention to incite or aid the student’s suicide. The court found that the necessary element of abetment was missing.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The FIR lacked specific details of harassment or insult.
• The teacher was performing his duty to maintain discipline.
• The suicide note did not attribute any act of instigation to the teacher.
• The deceased might have been hypersensitive, and the teacher’s actions would not ordinarily induce a similarly situated person to commit suicide.
• There was no mens rea on the part of the teacher to abet suicide.

“The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, in our considered opinion, would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason.”

“Thus, the appellant having found the deceased boy regularly bunking classes, first reprimanded him but on account of repeated acts, brought this fact to the knowledge of the Principal, who called the parents on telephone to come to the school. No further overt act has been attributed to the appellant either in the First Information Report or in the statement of the complainant, nor anything in this regard has been stated in the alleged suicide note.”

“In the absence of any specific allegation and material of definite nature, not imaginary or inferential one, it would be travesty of justice, to ask the appellant-accused to face the trial.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The two-judge bench unanimously agreed that the allegations did not constitute abetment of suicide.

The court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and the facts of the case. The court emphasized the need for a direct link between the accused’s actions and the suicide, which was missing in this case. The court also highlighted the importance of protecting teachers from unwarranted prosecution while performing their duties.

The implications for future cases are that the court has clarified that a teacher’s act of reprimanding a student for indiscipline cannot be considered abetment of suicide unless there is clear evidence of direct or indirect incitement. This ruling protects teachers from facing prosecution for carrying out their duties.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The court applied existing legal principles to the facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• A teacher’s act of reprimanding a student for indiscipline does not automatically constitute abetment of suicide.
• For an offense under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a clear act of instigation or intentional aid that leads to the commission of suicide.
• The allegations in the FIR must be specific and not vague or inferential.
• A teacher cannot be held liable for abetment of suicide if a student, who is very emotional or sentimental, commits suicide after being reprimanded for indiscipline.
• The courts must be cautious in exercising their inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the First Information Report registered as Case No. 162 of 2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a teacher’s act of reprimanding a student for indiscipline does not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code unless there is clear evidence of direct or indirect incitement. This judgment reinforces the principle that for abetment of suicide, there must be a clear link between the accused’s actions and the victim’s suicide. It clarifies the scope of Section 306 IPC in the context of teacher-student interactions and protects teachers from unwarranted prosecution while performing their duties. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has clarified its application in the context of teacher-student relationships.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR against the teacher, holding that his actions did not constitute abetment of suicide. The court emphasized the need for specific allegations and a clear link between the accused’s actions and the suicide for an offense under Section 306 of the IPC. This judgment provides important clarification regarding the responsibilities of teachers and the limits of abetment of suicide under the Indian Penal Code.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Abetment of Suicide

Child Category: Teacher-Student Relationship

Child Category: Criminal Law

FAQ

Q: Can a teacher be charged with abetment of suicide if a student commits suicide after being reprimanded?

A: Not automatically. The Supreme Court has clarified that a teacher’s act of reprimanding a student for indiscipline does not constitute abetment of suicide unless there is clear evidence of direct or indirect incitement.

Q: What is required for an offense under Section 306 of the IPC?

A: There must be a clear act of instigation or intentional aid that leads to the commission of suicide. The allegations in the FIR must be specific and not vague.

Q: What if the suicide note mentions the teacher’s name?

A: The mere mention of the teacher’s name in the suicide note is not sufficient to establish abetment of suicide. There must be evidence of instigation or intentional aid.

Q: What if the student is hypersensitive?

A: If the student is hypersensitive and the teacher’s actions would not ordinarily induce a similarly situated person to commit suicide, the teacher cannot be held liable for abetment of suicide.

Q: What should teachers do to avoid such situations?

A: Teachers should continue to maintain discipline in schools while being mindful of the emotional well-being of students. However, they should not be deterred from performing their duties due to fear of unfounded accusations.