Karnataka High Court

Maria Laila A C vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2024

                           -1-
                                   Crl.RP No.924 of 2016



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                        BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.924 OF 2016
BETWEEN:

1.    MARIA LAILA A.C.
      D/O LATE JOHN D. MELLO
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
      OCC: PRINCIPAL
      MARI MAACULATE HIGH SCHOOL
      R/O NO.235/40, 12TH MAIN ROAD
      MARY IMMACULATE CONVENT
      LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 030

2.    PHILOMENA MANUEL
      W/O MANUEL
      AGE 56 YEARS
      OCC: TEACHER
      MARI IMMACULATE HIGH SCHOOL
      R/O NO.12/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD
      2ND CROSS, MARURINAGAR, JAYANAGAR
      BANGALORE - 560 029
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI CHANDRA MOULI H.S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICY OF
SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION
BNAGALORE CITY
REPRESENTED BY
                                 -2-
                                          Crl.RP No.924 of 2016



THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
                                                  ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ
WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.06.2016 PASSED BY LEARNED L
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.
NO.234 OF 2015 AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS OF ALL
THE CHARGES IN THE SAID CASE.

     IN THIS PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 17.01.2024, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                           ORDER

Revision petitioners have presented this Revision Petition

against the order dated 22nd June, 2016 passed on the

application filed under Section 227 of Code of Criminal

Procedure in Spl.C.No.234 of 2015 by the L Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, whereby, the application

filed by the accused came to be dismissed.

2. Sri H.S. Chandra Mouli, learned Senior Counsel

representing the revision petitioners, argued that the

petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and have not

committed any wrongdoing as claimed by the prosecution. The

learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned order

passed by the court below contradicts both on law and the facts

presented in the material on record, and therefore, should be

set aside. Further, learned Senior Counsel asserted that the

averments made in the complaint are misconceived, self-

serving, and speculative, lacking any substantial evidence to

support the allegations. Even when considering all the evidence

provided by the prosecution, there is no indication that the

revision petitioners have committed any offence, rendering

charges baseless. Emphasizing the necessity for intentional aid

in abetting the accused to commit suicide for an offence

punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to be

established, learned Senior Counsel argued that this legal

principle set out by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of

SANJAY SINGH SENGAR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH as

reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, was not taken into account.

Additionally, learned Senior Counsel highlighted that aside from

the death note, there is no other evidence against the accused

to support charges either under Section 306 or under Section

107 of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to Page No.42 of the

inquest mahazar, which indicates that the accused, as teachers,

provided advise to the deceased to improve the education for

their benefit without any physical or mental ill-treatment,

learned Senior Counsel argued that there is no direct or indirect

incitement to the commission of suicide, and no material

evidence to suggest that the accused abetted deceased

students to commit suicide. Despite this, learned Senior

Counsel contended that the trial Court erroneously rejected the

application filed on behalf of the accused under Section 227 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, which according to him is

legally unsustainable. To substantiate his arguments, he relied

on the following decisions:

1. SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR v. STATE OF M.P. - (2002)5 SCC 371;

2. P. VIJAYAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

- (2010)2 SCC 398;

3. M. ARJUNAN v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE - (2019)3 SCC 315;

4. UDE SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA - (2019)17 SCC 301;

5. GEO VARGHESE v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER - 2021 SCC OnLine 873;

6. YUVARAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Criminal Petition No.200102 of 2014 decided on 13th March, 2015.

3. Per contra, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High

Court Government Pleader submitted that there are prima facie

materials to frame charges against accused for commission of

offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly,

the trial Court has observed the same and rejected the

application filed on behalf of the accused. He further submitted

that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by

the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the following

decisions:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SWATI PAI AND ANOTHER RENDERED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.62 OF 2018 DECIDED ON 11TH JANUARY, 2018;

2. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.943 OF 2023 DECIDED ON 04TH SEPTEMBER, 2023, RENDERING IN THE CASE OF JAGADEESH v.

STATE BY SHO, MAYAKONDA POLICE STATION;

3. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.949 OF 2023 DECIDED ON 03RD NOVEMBER, 2023 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VIDHYA AMARNATH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KRARNATAK AND ANOTHER.

4. Having heard the arguments of the learned Senior

Counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader and on

perusal of records, the following points would arise for my

consideration:

1. Whether the revision petitioners have made out a ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court which is impugned in this revision petition?

2. What order?

5. My answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1: In the affirmative;

Point No.2: as per final order

Regarding Point No.1:

6. I have carefully examined the material placed

before this Court.

7. Before appreciating the facts, it is appropriate to

mention as to the provisions of Section 107 of Indian Penal

Code. The same reads as under:

"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets in doing of a thing, who.-

Firstly.- 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, in doing of that thing;

Explanation 1.- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which his 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 the 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 facilitate, the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

8. It is also relevant to mention as to the provisions of

Section 306 Indian Penal Code. The same reads thus:

"The ingredients of abetment of suicide are as follows:

The Prosecution has to prove.-

(i) the deceased committed suicide;

(ii) the accused instigated or abetted for committing suicide (committing suicide by itself is a crime);

(iii) direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary.

9. In understanding the sanctity of student-teacher

relationship, few noteworthy sayings of our elders are required

to be mentioned here:

10. Alexander The Great said, "I am indebted to my

father for living but to my teacher for living well."

11. In Indian culture, the position of teachers is even

higher than Gods, as we call them "Guru". A famous Sanskrit

shloka explains very aptly the importance of a Guru:

"Gurur Brahma Gurur Vishnu Guru Devo Maheshwarah | Guru Saakshaat Parabrahma Tasmai Sri Gurave Namaha||"

12. Another very popular couplet by a well-known Indian

poet Kabir puts Teacher even ahead of God. He says, "Guru

Govind dou khade, kake lagoon paay; Balihari Guru aapne,

Govind diyo batay." Here, Kabir is wondering whose feet should

he touch first, either the Guru (the teacher) or God. He then

says that he knows of God only because of the teacher who led

him to God.

13. Aum Saha Navavatu, Saha Nau Bhunaktu, Saha Viiryam Karavaavahai| Tejasvi Navadhitamastu Maa Vidvishaavahai|| Om Shanthi! Shanthi! Shanthi"

Oh Lord (Brahman)! May You protect and nourish us

(Teacher & Student ) both together. May we both work

together in harmony with great courage and energy. May our

study be enlightened, brilliant, vigorous and effective. May we

not hate each other. May Lord (Brahman) bless us Peace

forever− Physically! Mentally and Spiritually! This, in fact, is

one of the Mantras for Peace, which has been described in the

Brahmananda valli of Taittiriya Upanishad and is specially

important to the Students or Youth who are exploring

aggressive learning and capable to design and mould the

peaceful world ever. This great Mantra has been set-up in the

form of the request of students and their teachers to the Lord

for protecting and blessing them with the bliss of Knowledge, to

exercise together for studying well what they study, but

without hatred or quarrel with each other, and for being them

in the reality of peace ever. As often whispered, teachers are

nation builders, who can build the nation solid and strong by

imparting right education among their students. Discipline can

improve students' character and analytical skills - which are

important to succeed in life. Effective discipline requires

a balance between punishment and positive

reinforcement.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of GEO

VERGHESE v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2021 SCC

ONLINE 873, at paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment, has held

as under:

"27. 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

- 10 -

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.

28. '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."

15. In the recent decision, in the case of VISHNU

KUMAR SHUKLA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2024 SC 90, in paragraphs 21 to

23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed as under:

- 11 -

"21. In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi (supra), this Court was alive to reality, stating that 'it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.' If a view gives rise to suspicion, as opposed to grave suspicion, the Court concerned is empowered to discharge the accused, as pointed out in Sajjan Kumar v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368. The Court, in Dinesh Tiwari (supra) had reasoned that if the Court concerned opines that there is ground to presume the accused has committed an offence, it is competent to frame a charge even if such offence is not mentioned in the Charge Sheet. As to what is 'strong suspicion', reference to Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (supra) is warranted, where it was explained that it is 'the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence.'

22. In a recent judgement viz. State of Gujarat v Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 INSC 89414, this Court held:

'7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are

- 12 -

sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material.

The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.

8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-

sheet material only.

9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge-sheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the I.O.

- 13 -

10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged.

11. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227 Cr. P.C. is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency.

12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima-facie case.It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial.'

23. On a careful conspectus of the legal spectrum, juxtaposed with our view on the facts and merits expressed hereinbefore, we are satisfied that there is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the offence alleged. It would be

- 14 -

unjustified to make the appellants face a full-fledged criminal trial in this backdrop. In an appeal dealing with the refusal of the High Court to quash an FIR under Section 482, CrPC albeit, this Court, while setting aside the judgment impugned therein and quashing that FIR, took the view that 'the Appellants are to be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution, and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial. The protection against vexatious and unwanted prosecution and from being unnecessarily dragged through a trial by melting a criminal proceeding into oblivion, either through quashing a FIR/Complaint or by allowing an appeal against an order rejecting discharge or by any other legally permissible route, as the circumstances may be, in the deserving case, is a duty cast on the High Courts. The High Court should have intervened and discharged the appellants. But this Court will intervene, being the sentinel on the qui vive."

16. In the case at hand, the prosecution alleges that

accused 1 and 2 frequently ill-treated Ms. Priyanka and Ms.

Sonali, leading to the loss of their tolerance and subsequent

suicide by drowning in Sankey Tank within the jurisdiction of

Sadashivanagar Police Station, on March 18, 2014, at 4:30 pm.

Prior to their suicide, they left behind a death note implicating

these accused. Therefore, the accused are charged with an

offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Following a complaint filed by B.V. Janardana, father of

- 15 -

deceased Priyanka, the Sadashivanagar Police registered a case

in Crime No.52 of 2014 against accused Maria and Philomena,

teachers at Mary Immaculate High School, Bangalore, for

allegedly abetting the suicide under Section 306 of the Indian

Penal Code and submitted a First Information Report to the

Court. Subsequently, on the same day, the police conducted a

spot panchanama, seized the death note signed by Priyanka

and Sonali, conducted an inquest panchanama, recorded

voluntary statements of the accused, obtained post-mortem

reports, recorded statements of other witnesses, obtained

forensic science laboratory reports regarding the death note,

and finally submitted the charge sheet against the accused for

allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 306

of the Indian Penal Code.

17. The piece of evidence to this case is the death note

executed by deceased Priyanka and Sonali. The copy of the

death note dated 18th March, 2014 is produced before this

Court. The same reads as under:

"GOOK LUCK OR BAD LUCK GOD KNOWS

18.03.2014.

We are Priyanka and Sonali We are dead THE REASON IS

- 16 -

Trouble of Philomina Immanual and Srs. Maria Lila A.C. of N.I.S. (Mary Immaculate High School, Wilson Garden) We are really sorry parents and especially our Brothers (Manu and Bruno) Sorry Mis. Vanaja, We really love you

We had so many dreams ... But you both spoilt all of it...

Miss Philomina has to be punished.

It is not only our wish, but also many others..

We all miss you dear friends All the best for your Exams Plz don't think about us.

Priyanka and Sonali"

18. The prosecution alleges that accused 1 and 2

frequently harassed their students, Priyanka and Sonali, who

were studying at their school. Allegedly, unable to bear this

harassment, the duo committed suicide by drowning in Sankey

Tank on March 18, 2014. According to the prosecution papers,

on March 17, 2014, when accused No.2, along with other

teachers, was heading to attend a meeting, deceased were

found playing Holi with a boy instead of returning home after

special classes. On March 18, 2014, accused No.2 purportedly

informed accused No.1 about the incident, and during her daily

rounds, accused No.1 called the deceased students to enquire

about the Holi incident. Accused 1 and 2 allegedly called the

mother of both students to the school, and only Priyanka's

- 17 -

mother arrived around 1:00 pm. Accused No.1 reportedly

informed Priyanka's mother that the deceased need not attend

special coaching classes as they were not interested in learning

and were spending time elsewhere. Priyanka's mother admitted

of hitting Priyanka for playing Holi in her school uniform and

advised her to mend her ways. When Priyanka's mother and

teachers did not find Priyanka and Sonali, they presumed that

both had returned home. Priyanka and Sonali were later found

at Sankey Tank in Sadashivanagar, where they bought maize

corn from a street vendor named Satish (CW6). Subsequently,

on March 18, 2014, at 4:30 pm, a First Information Report was

registered against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

19. In order to constitute an offence punishable under

Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, there has to be intentional

aid in abetting the accused to commit suicide, i.e. ingredients of

Section 107 of Indian Penal Code are to be satisfied. As stated

above, there must be proximity and nexus between the alleged

abetment and death of the deceased, which is also not

forthcoming in the material placed on record by prosecution.

- 18 -

20. The prosecution primarily relies on the death note

purportedly written by the deceased, Sonali. However, upon

reviewing the contents of the death note, it is observed that the

alleged averment fails to disclose the nature of the purported

harassment. Additionally, it does not provide any indication as

to how the accused individuals were responsible for the suicide

of the deceased.

21. In order to substantiate the accusation, the

prosecution has placed reliance on the deposition of CW1-

Janardan, CW2-Bhagyamma, CW6-Satish and CW10-Pramila.

CW1-Janardan the informant is the father of deceased Priyanka.

CW5-Bhagyamma who is the mother of deceased Priyanka, has

not spoken about any harassment except stating that on the

date of incident, she was summoned to school by teachers and

informed her that the deceased had applied Holi colour and

were advised. Further CW5 was advised to accommodate for

studies of Priyanka in the house. CW6-Satish is the corn

vendor near Sankey Tank. He has stated that on the date of

incident, deceased have approached him and purchased corn.

CW10-Pramila is the mother of deceased Sonali. She has

stated that her daughter Sonali used to tell her that accused 1

- 19 -

and 2 used to scold her for not studying properly and she was

also scolded for playing Holi.

22. A careful examination of the prosecution material

does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code. There is no cogent and cohesive

material available to establish the case of the prosecution, and

no prima facie case is being made out to showcase that the

accused instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

23. In order to constitute an offence under Section 306

of the Indian Penal Code, there must be an allegation of either

direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the

offence of suicide. Mere allegations of harassment of the

deceased by any person would not be sufficient in itself, unless

there are allegations of said action on the part of the accused

which compel committing suicide, which is inherently absent in

the instant case. The contents of the death note reveal that the

reason for death is the trouble caused by Philomena Immanuel

and Sr. Maria Lila of NIS Mary Immaculate High School, Wilson

Garden. Except for this allegation, there is no reference to the

nature of trouble caused by accused towards deceased.

- 20 -

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of GEO

VARGHESE (supra) has observed that it is the solemn duty of

the teacher to instill discipline in the students. It is uncommon

that teacher reprimand a student for not being attentive or not

being upto the mark in the studies or for bunking classes or for

not attending the school. The prosecution papers, including the

voluntary statement of the accused, reveals that only in order

to safeguard the future educational interest of the deceased

students, as they were not up to the mark in preparatory

examination, accused have taken special coaching classes to

them. Further, the voluntary statement of the accused 1 and 2

reveals that they have not given any mental or physical

harassment to the deceased students.

25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

and also keeping in mind the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, I am

of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to

place any sufficient material to frame the charge against the

accused for commission of offence punishable under Section

306 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, revision petitioners

have made out a ground to interfere with the impugned order