IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN Crl.OP.No.24858/2006 Cr.MP.NO.1/2006 1.N.Anjali Devi 2.C.Veeran ..Petitioners Vs State By 1.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram. 2.Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station Villupuram District ..Respondents Prayer:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in PRC.No.1/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Ulundurpet and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran For Respondents : Mr.S.Senthilmurugan for PP-RR1&2 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in PRC.No.1/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Ulundurpet and quash the same. 2. The material facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this Criminal Original Petition, are as follows:- The Petitioners are the Secondary Grade Teachers, working in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruvennainallur, Villupuram District. The 2nd Petitioner worked in the said School from 28.7.2004 to 13.9.2005 as a Science Teacher and he has been transferred and posted at Kumanantholu in Andipatti Taluk, Theni District. The 1st Petitioner is working in the same School. On 14.7.2005 at about 12.15 p.m., one Rani, Anganvadi Teacher reported to the Teachers that some one had taken a sum of Rs.1200/- from her bag, which was kept in the Balvadi Class and suspected that some of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the students of the IX Standard A of the School, who visited the Anganvadi, might have stolen the money. Accordingly, the Petitioners called for those students and their bags were searched. A few minutes thereafter, a student by name Udaya alias Saranya, the deceased herein gave Rs.100/- to the Petitioners, claiming that the said amount was found in the bag of one Kavitha, a co-student. Thereafter, Udaya @ Saranya and six other students were taken to the male staff room and they were enquired by the lady teachers. At that time, Udaya @ Saranya took Rs.600/- from her Churidhar pocket and handed over the same to the Petitioners. Another amount of Rs.500/- was also handed over by Udaya @ Saranya to one Jayanthi, PET Teacher. Arumugam, the father of the Udaya @ Saranya was sent for and he was appraised of the incident happened in the School. It is stated that Arumugam gave an undertaking letter, stating that he would warn his daughter and such things would not happen again in future and left the School. 3. After, the said incident, the deceased Udaya @ Saranya was in the School during lunch period and attended the post session classes and left the School at 4.20 pm. Thereafter, on an enquiry, the Petitioners had come to know that Udaya @ Saranya had immolated herself and was taken to the Government Hospital at Villupuram, where she had given a dying declaration to the Judicial Magistrate, stating that since the Petitioners scolded her that she had stolen the money and the 2nd Petitioner remarked to her to go and die and as she was so ashamed, she had immolated herself. 4. On the complaint given by the father of the deceased girl, FIR was registered in Cr.No.335/05 initially under Sections 309 read with 109 of IPC. Later the deceased died on 16.7.2005 and the offence was altered into one under Section 306 of IPC and the Petitioners have been arrayed as the accused. 5. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they being the responsible teachers acted according to their conscience and they have done nothing to instigate or abet the suicide committed by the deceased girl and the utterances alleged to have been made by the Petitioners does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that those words would be carried out in all events. 6. Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, the learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that none of the Petitioners have done any act, which either instigated or abetted the suicide committed by the deceased girl and as she was ashamed of her faults, she has committed suicide and if the Petitioners are to face the ordeal of trial, then the same only would result in serious miscarriage of justice and amount to abuse of process of law. He would submit that the basic ingredients for the offence of abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC are absent, as there was no intention whatsoever on the part of the Petitioners to utter anything in order to constitute the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ offence of abetment. According to him, the conduct of the Petitioners was very natural, as any prudent man would only try to find out as to who has stolen the money and the real fact is that the deceased girl had stolen the money and the same was exposed before the other students, which had led her to commit suicide. Therefore, he would contend that the commission of suicide by the deceased girl was not the direct result of the conduct of the Petitioners. 7. Mr.S.Senthilmurugan, representing the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the deceased girl had given a statement before her death and she had pointed out to the conduct of the Petitioners, in telling her to go and die than to live and the 1st Petitioner had slapped her on her cheek and scolded her for stealing the money. According to him, the commission of suicide by the deceased girl was the direct result of the utterance made by the Petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioners drew the attention of this court to a catena of decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has consistently held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be an instigation. 9. In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of MP and another [1995-Supp-3-SCC-438], the accused was charged for an offence under Section 306 of IPC on the ground that the accused during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the deceased to go and die and the Honourable Supreme Court, was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased to go and die were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 10. In the case of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of MP [1995- Supp-3-SCC-731], the accused was charged for an offence under Section 306 of IPC based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:- "My mother in law and husband and sister in law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister in law. Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning." The Honourable Supreme Court, considering the definition of abetment under Section 107 of IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the accused in the above said case for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. The Apex Court further held that none of the ingredients of abetment were attracted on the statement of the deceased. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. In yet another case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2001-9-SCC-618], the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the charge framed and conviction for the offence under Section 306 of IPC on the basis of the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband, who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire, acquitting the accused, the said:- "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty." 12. Reverting to the facts of the case, the statement of the witnesses made under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure would reveal that the stolen money had been recovered from the deceased girl and she was reprimanded by the Teachers more particularly the Petitioners herein for stealing the money. In the dying declaration, the deceased girl had stated that the 2nd Petitioner remarked her to go and die and the 1st Petitioner slapped on her cheek and scolded her in harsh words. Even assuming that the Petitioners have acted in the above said manner and uttered the above words as projected by the Prosecution, it is to be seen as to whether the said utterance would by itself constitute the ingredients of 'instigation'. 13. The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. The presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. Secondly, the said abusive words is said to have been uttered to the deceased by the Petitioners, when they had come to know that the deceased had stolen the money from the bag of the Anganvadi Teacher and money was also recovered from her. Thirdly, the deceased had her lunch in the School and attended the post lunch session classes and left the School only after it was over and she had committed suicide only after reaching the home. All these factors would clearly point out that it could not be a direct result of the utterances made by the Petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. In the case of Sanju aliss Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of MP {AIR-2002-SC-1998], it is held that the accused telling the deceased to go and die would by itself not constitute the ingredients of instigation and presence of mens rea is necessary concomitant of instigation. Holding so, the Honourable Supreme Court quashed the charge sheet framed under Section 306 of IPC on the ground that the ingredients of abetment is totally absent. 15. One important thing to be noted in this case is that the Petitioners being the Teachers of the Government School in the interest of the Institution correct any mistake done by the student in order to cultivate good habits and get rid of bad habits, such as stealing money. In fact, the father of the deceased girl had been summoned and it is stated that he gave a letter of apology for the conduct of his daughter and also undertook that the same would not recur again. In such view of the matter, the act of the petitioners cannot be said that it would amount to abetment of suicide. 16. In the case of Sashi Prabha Devi Vs. State of Assam [2006-Cri.LJ-1762], the allegation is that the accused, a Head Mistress of a School wrongly struck off the name of the deceased from the Register of the Students in Class X, which induced the deceased to commit suicide and the High Court of Gujarat has held that there was no evidence showing that the accused had acted at any point of time, suggested or hinted for commission of suicide and when the accused was entitled to correct any wrong order, as in fact deceased had not passed her class IX examination, no case of instigation or abetment of suicide was made out against the accused. 17. In the case of Nettai Dutta Vs. State of will be [2005-2-SCC-659], the Honourable Supreme Court upholding the order of the High Court, quashed the charge sheet filed under Section 306 of IPC on the ground that the offence under Section would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of crime. 18. In a very recent decision rendered in the case of Sonti Ramakrishna Vs. Sonti Shanthi Shree and another [2009-1-SCC- 554], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that though normally threshold interference should not be made under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, quashing of the complaint on facts was just and necessary. It has also held that words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. 19. By applying the above said well settled principles pronunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in a catena of decisions cited supra to the present case, on looking into the dying declaration of the deceased, which according to the learned Public Prosecutor is also a strong evidence in favour of the Prosecution, it is clear that the stolen money had been recovered only from the deceased and that the Petitioners being the teachers of her School https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had scolded her for stealing the money. The statement of the witnesses would suggest that she felt ashamed and depressed as her father was also summoned by the School and was informed about the act done by the deceased. In the said circumstances, certainly, it cannot be said the Petitioners had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or was responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased girl. 20. Taking into consideration of the totality of the materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Petitioners cannot be held responsible for the commission of suicide committed by the deceased girl, as there was no instigation or abetment on the part of the Petitioners in the commission of suicide by the deceased girl. Therefore, the charge sheet filed against the Petitioners for the offence under Section 306 of IPC in PRC.No.1/2006 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. 21. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Srcm To 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE II, ULUNDURPET. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VILLUPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVENNAINALLUR POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM DIST. 5. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS. + 1 c.c.to M/s. S. Sathiachandran, Advocate. S.R.No.35162. Order in Crl.OP.No.24858/2006 RSY (CO) GSK 10.08.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/