V. P. SINGH ETC versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. on 24 November 2022

V. P. SINGH ETC.

v.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

(Criminal Appeal No.2103/2010)

NOVEMBER 24, 2022

[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: s. 306 – Abetment of suicide – Commissionof suicide by the student after he was reprimanded for the misconductin the College – He was suspended and asked to call for his parentsas an exercise of legitimate disciplinary action; and was also issuednotice and was asked to deposit security amount of Rs. 10,000/- –However, instead of complying with the disciplinary action, studenttook his own life by jumping into the canal – Before doing so, hesent an SMS to his brother stating that he love his parents and doesnot want to trouble them – Registration of FIR against the appellants-teacher, Head of the Department and the principal – Charges framedu/s 306 – Revision petition thereagainst by the appellants, dismissedby the High Court – On appeal, held: There was no independentwitness to the actual incident – No case made out for abetment ofsuicide – Absence of necessary ingredients to make an offence –Disciplinary action is necessary for running the institute and contraposition would create lawless and unmanageable situation in aneducational institute – Further, the suicide note shows the deceasedthought that his father could be blamed for the episode and thusasked to not to trouble his father – Anguish of the father ought notto have been converted into a case of abetment of suicide –Investigation and the approach of the trial court could have beenmore realistic keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of thecase – Thus, orderframing the charges set aside.

S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr.(2010) 12 SCC 190 : [2010] 9 SCR 1111; Sanju AliasSanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. 2002 (5) SCC371 : [2002] 3 SCR 668 : [2002] 3 SCR 668; State ofWest Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors.” 2019 (10)SCC 188 : [2019] 13 SCR 489; Ramesh Kumar Vs.

847

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AState of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 : [2001] 4Suppl. SCR 247 – referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.2103 of 2010.

C

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2009 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.1079/2009 (O&M).

With

D

Crl. A. Nos.2104 And 2105 of 2010.

P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Sudarshan Rajan, Mahesh Kumar, HitainBajaj, Rohit Bhardwaj, Saksham Maheshwari, Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Manoj Rajpoot, Advs. for the Appellants.

EMs. Rooh-E-Hina Dua, Harshit K., Prem Malhotra, Advs. for theRespondents.

Petitioner-in-person

Respondent-in-person

The Order of the Court was passed byF

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

The criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment! Itis exactly what has happened in this case. 14 years on an issue ofabetment of suicide in an episode where a student was reprimanded forGmisconduct in the College and on endeavor to take disciplinary actionand call the father, though the parent did not turn up and subsequentlythe child committed suicide. An unfortunate situation! However, we areconcerned with the issue whether there is any element of an abetmentto suicide in the present case which was at the threshold of chargeshaving been framed.H

On 16.4.2008, the deceased viz. Mr. Gaurav Wahi was attendingthe last lecture under Mr. Nitin Shyam, one of the accused, and is allegedto have misbehaved with him in the class under the influence of alcohol.When Mr. Shyam asked Mr. Gaurav to leave the class, he ran out of theclass. This incident was reported by Mr. Nitin Shyam to Mr. SarabjitSingh, the acting Head of the Department. The incident was reported inwriting by Mr. Nitin Shyam on the next date i.e. 17.4.2008 to the thenHead of the Department. An order was passed suspending the deceasedfrom the class and calling upon him to call his parents as an exercise oflegitimate disciplinary action.

To redeem himself, Mr. Gaurav Wahi, the deceased wrote a letterof apology to the Head of the Department on 21.4.2008 in a way acceptingthe incident but denying that he was under the influence of alcohol. On23.4.2008, the Principal, Mr. V. P. Singh issued a notice whereby hedirected action against two students including the deceased in separateincidents calling for a security amount of Rs.10,000/- to be depositedwith the College as security deposit as a disciplinary exercise and tobring the parents to the office. This deposit was to be refunded at theend of completion of course.

Unfortunately the deceased, instead of complying with thedisciplinary action, chose to take his own life by jumping in the canal.Before doing so, he sent an SMS to his brother viz. Mr. Himmat Wahi.The purport of the message when translated into English and even readin the original language, was an intimation that he was jumping into thedeep side of the river. He stated that amongst all, he loved his motherthe most and wanted his father not to be troubled. The obvious purportof this is that while he was closest to his mother, he sought to anticipatethat his father may be blamed for the episode and that the father shouldnot be troubled by it.

On the complaint of the father, an FIR No.62 of 2008 wasregistered at P.S. Sardar Rupnagar District, Punjab on 29.4.2008 underSection 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the complaint that the saidsuicide was instigated by the three accused i.e. the teacher, the Head ofthe Department and the Principal.

It is interesting to note that on the bail application on 06.8.2008,one of the factors which weighed with the High Court while grantingbail was that the conduct could not be construed to make the accusedliable for offence under Section 306 of IPC as it was to ensure discipline A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain the class and the campus and even if the teachers are stated to beacting harshly, it could not be said that they wanted to incite, urge orprovoke the deceased to commit suicide.

On investigation the charge sheet was filed on 13.9.2008 andcharges were framed on 16.4.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, threeBaccused preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court whichwas dismissed on 30.4.2009 with a cryptic order only stating that theproceedings were at an early stage and did not call for any interference.

The present appeals were preferred assailing that order and interimstay was granted at the threshold. The trial of course naturally did notproceed in view of the stay by this Court. The matter has rested at thatCfor the last thirteen years!

In the present appeal proceedings, the appellants were called uponto file the complete records of the trial Court proceedings vide orderdated 26.9.2019 which has been accordingly filed.

We have heard learned counsel for parties and examined theDrecord.

If we turn to the complaint, the charge sheet is simply anincorporation of what the complainant has said. It is the say of the father,complainant (who was certainly not present to witness what happened)that some students were causing the noise and it was not the son/Edeceased. The son stated that he was not at fault but he was shouted atby Mr. Nitin Shyam to go out of the classroom. The deceased did so andclosed the door. It is alleged that thereafter Mr. Nitin Shyam ran afterthe son and caught hold of him by the arm and dragged him towards theoffice of the Head of the Department. On the next day i.e. 17.4.2008,when the deceased went to college, he found the notice to him pasted onFtheir notice board recording that he had been suspended and callingupon his parents, failing which, he will not be permitted to appear in theexamination. He was not permitted to enter the classroom on 17.4.2008and even on making a grievance to the Head of the Department, he didnot succeed as he was threatened to spoil his career but on meeting Mr.GNitin Shyam, he was turned away and also stated that if he were to die,it would not bother him. Since nothing happened for the next few daysdespite the best endeavour of the deceased, he committed suicide.

On perusal of the charge sheet, it was found that there is no otherindependent witness whose statement was recorded or who is cited as aHwitness to the actual incident. In view of the letter exchanged including his apology letter, it is quite obvious that the complaint has embellishmentsand endeavour to make out a case of abetment of suicide. If one maysay, on even reading of the charge sheet, on the basis of the complaintas it is, there is still no case made out for abetment of suicide.

Learned senior counsel for the appellants has relied inter alia onthe judgment of this Court in “S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajanand Anr.” reported as (2010) 12 SCC 190 more specifically paragraph24 & 25. The Court examined the matter in the conspectus of the prevalentlegal position in the Country. While suicide by itself is not an offence butan attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 of IPC. The Courtthereafter turned to the definition of abetment under Section 107 of IPCwhich reads as under:- “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 inany conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omissiontakes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to thedoing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doingof that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or bywilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, athing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing”

In the conspectus of the different judgments referred to in thatcase it was opined that the words “instigation” and “goading” should beintention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.While each person’s suicidability pattern is different from others, eachperson has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect and therefore itwas difficult to lay down any straightjacket formula in dealing with suchcases. In this context paragraph 25 reads as under:-

Ratio decidendi

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a personor intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positiveact on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committingsuicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Alegislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clearthat in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there hasto be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires anactive act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicideseeing no option and that act must have been intended to push thedeceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”B

Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment in “Sanju AliasSanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.” reported as 2002 (5) SCC 371to contend that the opinion of this Court is that even where a personstated that his death would not make any difference or that he could goand die. That itself would not amount to an instigation in absence ofCmens rea.

One other judgment referred before us is in the case of “State ofWest Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Ors.” reported as 2019 (10) SCC188 in which earlier judgment in “Ramesh Kumar Vs. State ofChhattisgarh” reported as (2001) 9 SCC 618 cited for approval settingDout the consideration of the scope of section 306 and ingredients whichare essential for abetment as set out in Section 107 IPC. While interpretingthe word instigation it was observed in paragraph 20 of Ramesh KumarCase (Supra) as under:

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite orEencourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigationthough it is not necessary that actual words must be used to thateffect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily andspecifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonablecertainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being speltFout. The present one is not a case where the accused had by hisacts or omission or by a continued course of conduct createdsuch circumstances that the deceased was left with no other optionexcept to commit suicide in which case an instigation may havebeen inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion withoutintending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said toGbe instigation.

In fact in Indrajit Kundu case (Supra) the judgment referred to usin Sanju case (supra) was once again referred to where the husbandand wife’s quarrel resulted in the husband telling the wife “to go anddie” and the suicide was committed two days later, was not said to haveHproximity to the quarrel even if stated in the suicide note.

To examine the factual matrix in the present case, in view of theaforesaid legal position, we find not an iota of material on record evenassuming the complete charge sheet to be correct which could lead to aconviction in a case of abetment as there was absence of the necessaryingredients to make the offence. While we appreciate the anguish of afather who has lost a young son, that cannot result in blaming the world(in the present case, the institution and its teachers) for what is a basicdisciplinary action necessary for running the institute. A contra positionwould create a lawless and unmanageable situation in an educationalinstitution. The suicide note further shows that there is something to besaid about the relationship between the deceased and his father wherein fact the deceased thought that his father could be blamed for theepisode and thus asked to not to trouble his father. The anguish of thefather ought not to have been converted into a case of abetment ofsuicide and certainly the investigation and the approach of the trial Courtcould have been more realistic keeping in mind the surrounding factsand circumstances in which the suicide episode occurred.

We thus set aside the order framing charges dated 16.4.2009 andimpugned order of the High Court sustaining the same and discharge theaccused in respect of FIR No.62 of 2008.

The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear theirown costs.

Nidhi Jain(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H