Karnataka High Court

Smt Yashodamma C K vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                             -1-




                                                        CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2756 OF 2021


                   BETWEEN:

                         SMT.YASHODAMMA C.K.,
                         W/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA K.P.,
                         NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
                         NOW WORKING AS A SCHOOL TEACHER
                         GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL
                         CHOTTAKYATANAHALLI VILLAGE
                         NAGAMANGALA TALUK
                         MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.

                                                                 ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K A., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:


                   1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed         BY THE POLICE OF NAGAMANGALA
by PADMAVATHI
BK                       TOWN POLICE STATION
Location: High           MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432
Court of
Karnataka                REPRESENTED BY SPP
                         HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                         BENGALURU - 560 001.

                   2.    NAGAMMA
                         W/O SRINIVASA
                         NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
                         SUBASHNAGARA
                         NAGAMANGALA TOWN
                               -2-




                                        CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021


    MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA., HCGP FOR R1;
    R2 SERVED)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.145/2020 PENDNG ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Dn.) AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA MANDYA
DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 305 OF IPC.


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in C.C.No.143/2020 registered for the offences

punishable under Section 305 of the IPC pending on the file of

Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Nagamangala, Mandya District.

2. Heard Sri.Chandrashekara.K.A., learned counsel

appearing for petitioner and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the

petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

The second respondent is the complainant, mother of the

deceased daughter. Petitioner is a school teacher who was

working in the Government Primary School, Saremegalakoppalu

at the relevant point in time. The daughter of the complainant

was a student of the petitioner. On 01.06.2017 the

grandmother of the student comes to the school to obtain a

school transfer certificate as the deceased was to graduate to

higher standards. At that point in time, it is alleged that the

petitioner has humiliated the deceased saying that she should

stop commission of theft as she is getting into another school

for a higher standard, the advise was as per the wish of the

grand mother.

4. Thereafter, on 09.06.2017 after about 10 days at

about 5.30 p.m. the deceased had been to certain program

where she meets the petitioner again and at that time

petitioner is said to have again abused the deceased saying

that it is better for her to go and die for not learning good

manners. On the next day on 10.06.2017 the deceased

commits suicide leaving a note on her left palm stating that

petitioner is responsible for her death and none other. It is for

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

the said reason the petitioner is hauled into these proceedings

on registration of a crime for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of the IPC. The police, after investigation, finding

that the victim was below 18 years has charge sheeted the

petitioner for offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC.

It is at that juncture, the petitioner knocks the doors of this

Court in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has nothing to do with the death of the daughter of

the complainant, the petitioner had only advised the deceased

not to commit theft in the house, as her grandmother has

always complained that she was thieving. This, by any stretch

of imagination, cannot be held to be having nexus or proximity

to the death of the daughter of the complainant.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader however

would seek to justify the action of filing of the charge sheet for

the offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC and would

submit that it is a matter of trial.

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both

the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue

with regard to offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC

in such cases where the relationship between the teacher and

the student and the teacher abusing the student which could

have nexus or becomes proximate to the death of the student,

need not detain this Court for long as the Apex Court in the

case of GEO VARGHESE v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND

ANOTHER1 while considering the identical issue has held as

follows:

"3. The appellant herein was appointed as a Physical Training Teacher in St. Xavier's School, Nevta in the year 2016. He was imparting Physical Training to the students from 1st to 5th standard. He was also a member of the Disciplinary Committee for maintaining overall discipline by the students of the School.

4. One student of Class 9th of the institution, unfortunately, committed suicide in the morning at about 04 : 00 AM on 26.04.2018. The mother of the deceased-student lodged the FIR in question on 02.05.2018 before the concerned Police Station under

2021 SCC OnLine SC 873

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

Section 306 IPC after about 7 days of the suicide, alleging that her son committed suicide due to mental harassment meted out by the appellant.

... ... ... ...

12. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire records.

13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a person committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt to suicide is considered to be an offence under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. It would be relevant to set out Section 306 of the IPC which reads as under:--

"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."

14. Though, the IPC does not define the word 'Suicide' but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is 'self-killing'. The word is derived from a modern latin word 'suicidium', 'sui' means 'oneself' and 'cidium' means 'killing'. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of 'self-killing'. In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself.

15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC which 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 in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

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."

16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh1 has defined the word 'instigate' as under:--

"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act."

17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan2, it was observed as under:--

"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 intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme 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."

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

18. In a recent pronouncement, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra3, while considering the co-relation of Section 107 IPC with Section 306 IPC has observed as under:--

"47. The above decision thus arose in a situation where the High Court had declined to entertain a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the 14 (2014) 4 SCC 453 PART I 33 CrPC. However, it nonetheless directed the investigating agency not to arrest the accused during the pendency of the investigation. This was held to be impermissible by this Court. On the other hand, this Court clarified that the High Court if it thinks fit, having regard to the parameters for quashing and the self restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the investigation "and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law. Clearly therefore, the High Court in the present case has misdirected itself in declining to enquire prima facie on a petition for quashing whether the parameters in the exercise of that jurisdiction have been duly established and if so whether a case for the grant of interim bail has been made out. The settled principles which have been consistently reiterated since the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Bhajan Lal) include a situation where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. This legal position was recently reiterated in a decision by a two- judge Bench of this Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra.

48. The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the High Court spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of any evaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue. The High Court, in other words, failed to apply its mind to a 15 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 16 (2019) 14 SCC 350 PART I 34 fundamental issue which needed to be considered while dealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court, by its judgment dated 9 November 2020, has instead allowed the petition for quashing to stand over for hearing a month later, and therefore declined to allow the appellant's prayer for interim bail and relegated him to the remedy under

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

Section 439 of the CrPC. In the meantime, liberty has been the casualty. The High Court having failed to evaluate prima facie whether the allegations in the FIR, taken as they stand, bring the case within the fold of Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, this Court is now called upon to perform the task."

19. In the case of M. Arjunan v. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police4, a two-Judge Bench of this Court has expounded the ingredients of Section 306 IPC in the following words:--

"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C."

20. At this stage, we may also refer to another recent judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana5, which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following words:--

"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has

- 10 -

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above- referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self- esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."

21. We may also refer to a two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat,6 wherein the judgment rendered by the High Court quashing the FIR under Section

- 11 -

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

482 was set aside. In the said case, an FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC stating that the son and daughter- in-law were teachers in a Zila Parishad School where the accused was also a teacher used to make frequent calls on the mobile of the daughter-in-law, and used to harass her. Despite the efforts of the son of the informant in trying to make the accused see reason and stop calling, the accused continued with his activity. On 09.02.2015, there was a verbal altercation between the son of the informant and the accused and on 12.02.2015, he committed suicide leaving a note stating that his family life has been ruined by the accused who should not be pardoned and should be hanged. Under Section 482 Cr.PC, a petition was filed by the accused challenging the FIR, which was allowed by the High Court and thereafter, was challenged before this Court. The appeal was allowed by this Court and made the following observations:--

"We now consider the facts of the present case. There are definite allegations that the first respondent would keep on calling the wife of the victim on her mobile and keep harassing her which allegations are supported by the statements of the mother and the wife of the victim recorded during investigation. The record shows that 3-4 days prior to the suicide there was an altercation between the victim and the first respondent. In the light of these facts, coupled with the fact that the suicide note made definite allegation against first respondent, the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the first respondent had the requisite intention to aid or instigate or abate the commission of suicide. At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent."

22. In the above quoted observations of this Court, there is a clear indication that there was a specific averment in the FIR that the respondent had continuously harassed the spouse of the victim and did not rectify his conduct despite being objected by the victim. Thus, as a matter of fact he had actively facilitated in the commission of suicide.

- 12 -

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.

24. In the backdrop of the above discussion, we may now advert to the facts of the present case to test whether the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC exist, even prima-facie, to continue with the investigations.

25. The FIR recites that victim boy was under deep mental pressure because the appellant herein had harassed and insulted him in the presence of everyone and he was not willing to go to school on 25.04.2018 but was persuaded to go to school by the complainant. When he returned from the school, again he was under very much pressure and on being enquired told that today again he was harassed and insulted by the GEO, PTI Sir (the appellant). The boy was informed that the parents have been called to school next day and this brought him under further severe pressure and tension.

26. In the First Information Report and as also the statement of the complainant recorded by the police, no reasons or cause for the appellant to harass and insult the victim are spelled out nor there are any details with respect to any action on the part of the appellant by which the deceased boy might have felt being harassed and insulted.

- 13 -

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

27. The appellant in his petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court has set out detailed facts and circumstances, which unfortunately the High Court failed to even take notice of much less analyse the same before coming to the conclusion. It was stated in the petition that as a PT Teacher, he was imparting Physical Training to the students from 1st to 5th standard and being a member of the Disciplinary Committee, was also charged with the duty of maintaining discipline in the school which included keeping a watch upon students and oversee that they are attending the classes instead of bunking the same and moving around in the school premises without permission. It was also stated that the victim, a student of class 9, generally used to bunk his classes and was warned by the appellant and other school staff a number of times. On 19.04.2018, he was caught by the appellant bunking classes and moving around the school campus without any cause or permission and a warning was given to him. On 25.04.2018, he was caught bunking classes and again the appellant issued him a warning and on account of persistent act of bunking classes, reported the same to the Principal of the School, who informed the parents of the boy to come to the school.

28. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being upto the mark in studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school. 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. A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student.

- 14 -

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

29. 'Spare the rod and spoil the child' an old saying may have lost its relevance in present days and Corporal punishment to the child is not recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school authorities have to shut their eyes to any indiscipline act of a student. It is not only a moral duty of a teacher but one of the legally assigned duty under Section 24 (e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to hold regular meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise them about the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other act or relevant information about the child.

30. 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. The alleged suicide note only records insofar as, the appellant is concerned, 'THANKS GEO (PTI) OF MY SCHOOL'. Thus, even the suicide note does not attribute any act or instigation on the part of the appellant to connect him with the offence for which he is being charged.

31. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an act of indiscipline and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice of Principal of the institution who conveyed to the parents of the student for the purposes of school discipline and correcting a child, any student who is very emotional or sentimental commits suicide, can the said teacher be held liable for the same and charged and tried for the offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC.

32. Our answer to the said question is 'No'.

(emphasis supplied)

- 15 -

CRL.P No. 2756 of 2021

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, the facts

obtaining in the case at hand is required to be noticed. The

only circumstance that is narrated in the complaint or finding

in the charge sheet is that the petitioner had allegedly abused

the student to go and die instead of living. This is the exact

circumstance that is considered by the Apex Court in the case

of GEO VARGHESE (supra). Therefore, in view of the fact that

the issue stands covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in