Rajasthan HC Discharges Three Teachers from Abetment of Suicide Charge, Holds Reprimand for Poor Attendance Cannot Be Instigation
The Jodhpur Bench quashed charges framed under Section 305 IPC against two schoolteachers and a colleague, ruling that disciplinary conduct without positive incitement cannot constitute abetment of suicide under Section 107 IPC.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has discharged three accused schoolteachers from a charge of abetment of suicide of a minor under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, nearly two decades after a Class XII student at a Bikaner school took her own life in October 2005. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, sitting singly, allowed two connected criminal revision petitions filed by the teachers, quashing a charge-framing order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Bikaner. The Court held that advising a student to attend classes regularly and asking her to bring her father to school if she remained irregular did not amount to instigation or intentional aid as contemplated under Section 107 IPC — the foundational provision whose ingredients must first be satisfied before Section 305 IPC can be invoked.
The Complaint and the Suicide Note
The complainant was the father of Kumari Durga Suthar, a student of Class XII at Rashtriya Sahayak Senior Secondary School, Roshnigar Chauraha, Bikaner. His daughter died by suicide by hanging on 19.10.2005. She reportedly left behind a suicide note naming four of her teachers — Subhash Swami, Ravi, Swarna and Meena — alleging that they used to harass and insult her and were attempting to expel her from school without justifiable reason.
On the basis of this complaint, an investigation was carried out. The Investigating Officer, after examining statements of teachers and classmates of the deceased, concluded that the student was irregular in attending classes and was not studying properly, for which her teachers reprimanded her. She was also asked to bring her father to school if her irregularity continued. The police submitted Negative Final Report No.114/2006 dated 19.09.2006, concluding that no offence was made out against any of the teachers.
Despite the negative final report, the Sessions Case proceeded. On 09.02.2021, the Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Bikaner, framed charges against the petitioners under Section 305 IPC in Sessions Case No.28/2020 (CIS No.29/2018). That order was challenged before the High Court through the present revision petitions.
The Legal Issue: Whether Disciplinary Conduct Satisfies Section 107 IPC
The petitioners in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 263/2021 were Smt. Swarna Kalra, aged about 66 years, of Subhashpura, Bikaner, and Smt. Meena Godwani, aged about 61 years, of Marudhara Nagar, Bikaner. The petitioner in the connected S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 262/2021 was Ravi Bhatnagar @ Ravindra, aged about 54 years, of Bikaner. All three were represented by Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari and Mr. Abhishek Mehta. The State was represented by Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, Public Prosecutor, and the complainant by Mr. D.S. Gharsana.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial Court committed a manifest error in framing charges because the material on record — including the complaint and the investigation — did not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 305 IPC. They submitted that Section 305 IPC, which deals with abetment of suicide by a person under eighteen years of age, necessarily requires the prosecution to first establish the elements of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC covers abetment by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. Counsel contended that neither instigation nor intentional aid was discernible from the material collected during investigation.
The complainant's counsel opposed the revision petitions, arguing that the suicide note recovered by the Investigating Agency clearly pointed to continuous harassment and humiliating conduct by the petitioners. He submitted that at the stage of framing charges, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record a conclusive finding on guilt — it need only be satisfied that a prima facie case exists.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Kuldeep Mathur examined the material on record and returned to first principles on the law of abetment. The Court observed that for an offence under Section 305 IPC to be made out, the foundational requirements of abetment under Section 107 IPC must first be established. Section 107 IPC contemplates abetment by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.
The Court then articulated the line that separates ordinary disciplinary conduct from criminal abetment. It held that “mere reprimand, criticism or disciplinary action, in the absence of any positive act of incitement or intentional assistance coupled with the requisite mens rea, cannot amount to abetment of suicide.” The teacher-student relationship, the Court noted, is founded upon discipline, guidance and academic supervision. A teacher is duty-bound to maintain discipline and may legitimately reprimand a student for irregular attendance, poor academic performance or indiscipline.
Applying this to the facts, the Court found that the allegations against the petitioners amounted, at their highest, to causing mental distress to the deceased through their conduct as teachers. The investigation itself had established that the deceased was repeatedly advised to attend classes, prepare for her examinations and appear in regular class tests, and was told to bring her father to school if her irregularity persisted. These acts, the Court held, were performed in the ordinary course of discharging professional duties and could not be construed as instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide.
On the question of mens rea, the Court found no material on record to indicate that any of the petitioners possessed the requisite mental element or committed any positive, direct or active act intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide, or to create a situation in which she was left with no option but to take the extreme step. The absence of the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC meant that the offence under Section 305 IPC was simply not made out on the material available.
The Court accordingly held that the trial Court had committed a manifest error in framing charges under Section 305 IPC.
Outcome
Justice Kuldeep Mathur allowed both criminal revision petitions. The order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No.28/2020 (CIS No.29/2018), framing charges against the petitioners under Section 305 IPC, was quashed and set aside. All three petitioners — Smt. Swarna Kalra, Smt. Meena Godwani, and Ravi Bhatnagar @ Ravindra — stand discharged from the said offence. Stay petitions and all pending applications were disposed of.