Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1002
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka
Can disciplinary actions by college authorities for student misconduct be considered abetment to suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case where a student tragically took his own life after being reprimanded for misbehavior. The court examined whether the actions of the college principal and teachers constituted abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The bench comprised of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, who delivered a unanimous judgment.
Case Background
On April 16, 2008, Mr. Gaurav Wahi, a student, allegedly misbehaved in class under the influence of alcohol during a lecture by Mr. Nitin Shyam. Mr. Shyam asked Mr. Wahi to leave the class, which he did. Mr. Shyam reported the incident to Mr. Sarabjit Singh, the acting Head of the Department. The next day, April 17, 2008, Mr. Shyam submitted a written report to the Head of the Department. Consequently, Mr. Wahi was suspended from class and asked to bring his parents to the college.
On April 21, 2008, Mr. Wahi wrote an apology letter to the Head of the Department, acknowledging the incident but denying he was under the influence of alcohol. On April 23, 2008, the Principal, Mr. V. P. Singh, issued a notice directing disciplinary action against Mr. Wahi and another student. They were required to deposit ₹10,000 as a security deposit and bring their parents to the office. This deposit was to be refunded upon completion of the course.
Tragically, instead of complying with the disciplinary action, Mr. Wahi committed suicide by jumping into a canal. Before doing so, he sent an SMS to his brother, Mr. Himmat Wahi, indicating his intention to jump into the river and expressing his love for his mother while asking that his father not be troubled.
Following a complaint by Mr. Wahi’s father, FIR No. 62 of 2008 was registered on April 29, 2008, at P.S. Sardar Rupnagar District, Punjab, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint alleged that the suicide was instigated by the teacher, the Head of the Department, and the Principal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 16, 2008 | Mr. Gaurav Wahi allegedly misbehaves in class. |
| April 17, 2008 | Mr. Nitin Shyam reports the incident in writing; Mr. Wahi is suspended and asked to bring his parents. |
| April 21, 2008 | Mr. Wahi writes an apology letter. |
| April 23, 2008 | Principal issues notice for disciplinary action, including a security deposit. |
| April 29, 2008 | FIR No. 62 of 2008 is registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| August 6, 2008 | High Court grants bail to the accused. |
| September 13, 2008 | Charge sheet is filed. |
| April 16, 2009 | Charges are framed against the accused. |
| April 30, 2009 | High Court dismisses the criminal revision petition. |
| November 24, 2022 | Supreme Court allows the appeals and discharges the accused. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court, while granting bail on August 6, 2008, observed that the actions of the accused were to maintain discipline and did not incite the deceased to commit suicide. However, after the charge sheet was filed on September 13, 2008, charges were framed on April 16, 2009. The accused filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on April 30, 2009. The Supreme Court granted an interim stay, and the trial did not proceed for thirteen years.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with abetment of suicide. The court also considered Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines abetment.
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“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”
Arguments
The complainant, the father of the deceased, alleged that his son was shouted at by Mr. Nitin Shyam and was dragged towards the office of the Head of the Department. He further stated that the deceased was suspended and not allowed to enter the classroom. The complainant also alleged that Mr. Shyam stated that if the deceased were to die, it would not bother him.
The appellants argued that the disciplinary actions were necessary for maintaining order in the college and did not amount to instigation or abetment of suicide. They relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. [(2010) 12 SCC 190], Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [2002 (5) SCC 371], and State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors. [2019 (10) SCC 188].
The appellants contended that there was no mens rea or intention to provoke or incite the deceased to commit suicide. They argued that the actions were part of a legitimate disciplinary process and that the deceased’s suicide was not a direct consequence of their actions.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Complainant’s Submission: The actions of the college authorities led to the suicide. |
|
| Appellants’ Submission: The actions were part of necessary disciplinary measures and did not amount to abetment. |
|
The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in their emphasis on the absence of mens rea and the fact that the disciplinary actions were a necessary part of the college’s functioning. They argued that the suicide was a personal decision of the deceased and not a direct consequence of their actions.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the actions of the college authorities constituted abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court also examined whether there was sufficient evidence to frame charges against the accused.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the actions of the college authorities constituted abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | The Court held that the actions of the college authorities did not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court found no evidence of instigation or intention to provoke the deceased to take his own life. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to frame charges against the accused. | The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to frame charges. The Court noted that the charge sheet was merely an incorporation of the complainant’s statements and lacked independent corroboration. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. [(2010) 12 SCC 190] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to define abetment and emphasize the need for a positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide. It was used to highlight that there must be a clear mens rea to commit the offence and an active act that led the deceased to commit suicide. |
| Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [2002 (5) SCC 371] | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to argue that even if a person says “go and die,” it does not amount to instigation without mens rea. |
| State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors. [2019 (10) SCC 188] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to reiterate the ingredients of abetment as set out in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and to emphasize the need for a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence of suicide. |
| Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618] | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited with approval in State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors. to interpret the word “instigation” and to emphasize that a word uttered in anger without intending the consequences cannot be considered instigation. |
| Section 107, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | The Court interpreted the definition of abetment as defined in this section to determine if the actions of the college authorities constituted abetment. |
| Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | The Court used this provision to determine if the accused were liable for abetment of suicide. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order framing charges, and discharged the accused. The court held that there was no evidence of instigation or mens rea to commit the offence of abetment of suicide.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Complainant’s submission that the actions of the college authorities led to the suicide. | The Court found no merit in this submission, stating there was no evidence of instigation or intention to provoke the deceased to commit suicide. The Court noted that the charge sheet lacked independent corroboration and was merely an incorporation of the complainant’s statements. |
| Appellants’ submission that the actions were part of necessary disciplinary measures and did not amount to abetment. | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the disciplinary actions were necessary for maintaining order in the college and did not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court emphasized the absence of mens rea and the fact that the actions were part of a legitimate disciplinary process. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. [(2010) 12 SCC 190]* was used to define abetment and emphasize the need for a positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide. It was used to highlight that there must be a clear mens rea to commit the offence and an active act that led the deceased to commit suicide.
✓ Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. [2002 (5) SCC 371]* was used to argue that even if a person says “go and die,” it does not amount to instigation without mens rea.
✓ State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors. [2019 (10) SCC 188]* was referred to reiterate the ingredients of abetment as set out in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and to emphasize the need for a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence of suicide.
✓ Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618]* was cited with approval in State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors. to interpret the word “instigation” and to emphasize that a word uttered in anger without intending the consequences cannot be considered instigation.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence of any intent to instigate or provoke the deceased to commit suicide. The Court emphasized that the actions of the college authorities were aimed at maintaining discipline and were not intended to cause the tragic outcome. The Court also noted that the charge sheet was based solely on the complainant’s statements without any independent corroboration. The Court also took into consideration that the deceased himself felt that his father may be blamed for the episode and thus asked not to trouble his father.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Absence of intent to instigate or provoke suicide. | 40% |
| Disciplinary actions were necessary for maintaining order. | 30% |
| Charge sheet lacking independent corroboration. | 20% |
| Deceased’s own apprehension of his father being blamed. | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of abetment and the application of established legal principles to the given facts.
The Court considered the arguments and the evidence presented and concluded that the actions of the college authorities did not meet the threshold for abetment of suicide. The Court emphasized that the disciplinary actions were not intended to cause the deceased to commit suicide.
The Court stated: “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.”
The Court also highlighted: “The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”
The court further observed: “A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
The Court did not find any alternative interpretations that would support the charges of abetment of suicide against the accused. The Court concluded that the actions of the college authorities were part of a necessary disciplinary process and did not constitute abetment of suicide.
The judgment was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the decision and reasoning.
Key Takeaways
- Disciplinary actions by educational institutions, if taken in good faith, do not constitute abetment of suicide.
- To prove abetment of suicide, there must be a clear intention to provoke or incite the deceased to take their own life.
- A charge sheet must have independent corroboration and cannot solely rely on the complainant’s statements.
- The mental state of the accused (mens rea) is crucial in determining abetment of suicide.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the order framing charges dated 16.4.2009 and the impugned order of the High Court sustaining the same and discharged the accused in respect of FIR No.62 of 2008.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that disciplinary actions by educational institutions, if taken in good faith, do not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment reinforces the principle that abetment requires a clear intention to provoke or incite the deceased to take their own life, along with an active act that led the deceased to commit suicide. This case clarifies that routine disciplinary actions, even if perceived as harsh, cannot be equated with abetment of suicide unless there is a clear mens rea and a direct link between the actions and the suicide. This judgment does not change the previous position of law, but rather reinforces the existing legal principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of distinguishing between legitimate disciplinary actions and abetment of suicide. The court’s ruling provides clarity on the legal requirements for establishing abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing the need for a clear intention to provoke or incite suicide and a direct link between the accused’s actions and the deceased’s decision to end their life. This judgment offers significant guidance for educational institutions and law enforcement agencies when dealing with cases involving suicide following disciplinary actions.
Source: V.P. Singh vs. State of Punjab