High Court of Kerala quashed the prosecution proceedings under Section 306 IPC against a teacher accused of instigating a student to suicide. The court held that the allegations did not establish the requisite mens rea or clear abetment of suicide.
Crl.M.C allowed; further proceedings in S.C.No.41 of 2011 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 4687 of 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 41/2011 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
DR.SUSAN MATHEW M.D.S AGED 37 YEARS M.D.S, D/O.LEELAMMA, RESIDING AT P.1. BUNGALOW, T.B.JUNCTION, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.AJAKUMAR SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT-DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID, HHW1, SUB UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 SANJITH S/O.SADASIVAN, SUKRUTHAM, CRA-51, GOUREESAPATTOM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2018, THE COURT ON 08.11.2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.4687/14
2
ORDER
Petitioner stands indicted as the sole accused in S.C.No.41 of 2011 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nedumangad, for offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Crl.M.C.4687/14
3
part of curriculum, victim was given a patient for making and providing a complete artificial denture. The victim who was a final year B.D.S student could not complete the assignment. She represented that the above patient had permanently left the place and she did not come back. Later, the patient returned and complained that the victim girl had called her through telephone and told that the college had no facility to do the balance clinical works on her and she should approach other hospitals. On getting to know about this, victim girl was called to the department and was got clarified. She admitted her mistake and submitted an apology in writing, along with the OP card of the patient. She was warned not to repeat such practices. Thereafter, she was allotted treatment of another patient, which was to be completed in 5 sittings. The victim did not satisfactorily work in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The victim was called and she was asked to improve herself. She was directed to do clinical work on inanimate models in the clinical labs, along with other junior students. It was thereafter, she committed suicide. It was stated by the petitioner that, she was absolutely innocent of the crime and has only taken necessary action to ensure discipline in the institution and for the betterment of the students. There was an allegation that the petitioner had declared that, she will not allow the victim to sit for the examination. There was also an allegation that, when the victim came to her chamber to tender apology, she was asked to get out of the chamber. Petitioner denied both the allegations. Petitioner
Crl.M.C.4687/14
4
sought to quash the proceedings on the premise that, legally the offence under section 306IPC was not sustainable against her and there was no requisite mens rea to commit the offence. She never intended that the victim should commit suicide, it was argued.
Crl.M.C.4687/14
5
mentioned. In fact, none of them have indicated that the conduct of the petitioner herein was to instigate the victim to commit suicide. None of them have also a case that the conduct of the petitioner herein was intentional or purposeful or was meant to harass the victim.
Crl.M.C.4687/14
6
committed by the student, victim was cautioned which appears to be the part of enforcement of discipline in the college. It cannot straight away be held that scolding and rectification measures was with a malafide intention and it cannot be said that petitioner had requisite mens rea to drive victim to suicide.
Crl.M.C.4687/14
7
within the contours of 'abetment'.
275) had held that even in a case where in the suicide note, there was a reference of the name of the accused, still, the Court went to the extent of saying that there was no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant is alleged to have committed any willful act or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013(3) KHC 810), it was held that, to constitute an offence under section 306IPC, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide.
Crl.M.C.4687/14
8
In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.41 of 2011 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nedumangad will stand quashed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
Sbna/
Crl.M.C.4687/14
9
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| ANNEXURE P1 | CERTIFIED TO THE ACC |
COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUPPLIED USED IN CRIME NO.129/CR/09/TVM |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE P2 | TRUE COPY NO.41/2011 THE ASSIST |
OF THE CRL.MP NO.1295/2012 IN SC FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE ANT SESSIONS COURT, NEDUMANGAD. |
| ANNEXURE P3 | TRUE COPY NO.1295/20 THE ASSIST |
OF THE OBJECTION TO CRL.MP 12 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE ANT SESSIONS COURT, NEDUMANGAD |
| ANNEXURE P4 | TRUE COPY CRL.MP NO. FILE OF NEDUMANGAD |
OF THE ORDER DATED 27/6/2014 IN 1295/2012IN S.C.NO.41/2011 ON THE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's conduct amounted to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the requisite mens rea existed to instigate the victim to commit suicide.
Whether the suit of quashing the prosecution was maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanju @ Sanju Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (LAWS(SC) 2002 555)Referred¶38
Crl.M.C.1264/2005 of this Court, in Alex Sam Chrismas v. Prabhakaran and othersReferred¶38
Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal (LAWS (SC) 2005 275)Referred¶42
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013(3) KHC 810)Referred¶43
Mohandas @Mohan P. v. State of Kerala (2013 KHC 330)Referred¶44
2 provisions across 1 enactments
DR. SUSAN MATHEW
STATE OF KERALA
SANJITH
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
