K.Ravikumar v. State by: Station House Officer, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Pondicherry, Pondicherry District.2.Mrs.Rukmani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 16.05.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHACrl.O.P.No.22507 of 2006and M.P.No.1 of 2006K.Ravikumar... Petitioner Vs1.State by: Station House Officer, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Pondicherry, Pondicherry District.2.Mrs.Rukmani... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. tocall for the records of the charge sheet and quash the criminalprosecution in P.R.C.No.8 of 2006 against the petitioner pending on thefile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, Pondicherry State.For Petitioner : Mr.S.VijayanFor Respondents : Mr.A.P.Suriyaprakash, Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry,for R.1 Mr.G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, for R.2O R D E RLearned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerhas come forward with this petition seeking the relief of quashing theproceedings pending against him in P.R.C.No.8 of 2006 on the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.2. This is a very unfortunate case, wherein a student of IIYear B.Tech. Course, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry hastaken an extreme decision to put an end to his life by committing suicideby hanging, as he has obtained less marks in Mathematics than hisexpectation, as a result of which, the petitioner, who is the lecturer inMathematics, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, has been implicated inthis case for the alleged offence under Section 306 I.P.C., on theallegation that because of his negligent and careless correction of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ papers, awarded 20 marks in the place of 54 and 61 marks, given afterrevaluation by other lecturers and as such, he has abetted the victimstudent to commit suicide.3. The complaint was registered in this case on the basis ofthe report said to have been given by the mother of the victim on11.07.2003 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C.4. It is stated by the mother of the victim in the complaintthat her son, aged about 20 years, was studying in the GovernmentEngineering College, Pondicherry and on 10.07.2003, he has received hismark sheet for the II Year Examinations in B.Tech. It is further allegedthat after the receipt of the mark sheet, her son was very depressed andhe has not properly taken his food in the night. It is stated in thecomplaint that on 11.07.2003 at 6.00 a.m., the victim was found hangingwith a nylon saree at the pooja room of the house. It is alsospecifically stated by the mother of the victim in the complaint that thevictim is said to have committed suicide as he has obtained less marks inthe examination.5. Apart from the complaint given by the mother of the victimas stated above, the father of the victim has also made a representationto the Pondicherry Government seeking action against the teaching stafffor their reckless and hasty correction of answer papers. On suchrepresentation, an enquiry was conducted. The authorities were alsodirected for re-valuation. In the re-valuation, the victim is said tohave secured more marks, as a result of which, the case was altered intoone under Section 306 I.P.C.6. Mr. S.Nagamuthu, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner made the following submissions:-(i) The materials available on record do not constitute a prima faciecase under Section 306 I.P.C.;(ii) There is absolutely no material available on record to show thatthere was any nexus between the act of the petitioner and the cause ofthe death of the student namely, the victim in this case;(iii) The materials available on record do not attract the ingredientsof the abetment under Section 107 I.P.C.;(iv) There are no materials available on record to show that the deceasedstudent was neither known to the petitioner nor the petitioner wasinimical towards the deceased student and there is absolutely no mensrea for the petitioner to commit the offence.7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry hascontended that there are enough materials available on record to implicate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. It is contendedby the learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry that the suicide note leftby the victim also clearly shows that the deceased student decided tocommit suicide only on the ground of scoring less marks and he has alsoclearly mentioned in the suicide note that there should be some solutionfor the careless and reckless valuation of papers by the teachers.Therefore, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherrythat there is no ground made out by the petitioner seeking the relief ofquashing the proceedings. 8. Mr.G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, learned counsel appearing for thesecond respondent / de facto complainant also contended that the materialsavailable on record make out a prima facie case against the petitionerunder Section 306 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the second respondentheavily placed reliance on the suicide notes left by he victim in thiscase. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondentthat in the suicide note, the victim has categorically stated that he hasdecided to put an end to his life only because of the lesser marks awardedto him.9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions putforward by either side and also perused the entire materials available onrecord.10. The perusal of the records discloses that this case wasregistered on the basis of the complaint given by the mother of the victimon 11.07.2003 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. In the complaint, there is nomention about the alleged suicide notes left by the victim in this case.It is seen that only subsequently the suicide notes were seized from thecot of the victim. The victim is said to have written one suicide noteto his mother in Tamil and other suicide note in English to his friends.The perusal of the suicide notes discloses that there is absolutely nospecific allegation levelled against the petitioner herein and there isonly a general remarks against the University Correction System. It ismentioned in the suicide notes that the victim expected 100 out of 100 or90 out of 100 in Mathematics, but he was given only 42 marks and as such,he was depressed. It is also mentioned in the suicide note addressed tohis mother that there should be an end to the teachers, who are correctingthe answer papers carelessly. The perusal of the suicide note furthershows that there should be change in the University Correction System.The victim is also said to have requested his mother to hand over yetanother letter written to his friends.11. In the two other letters addressed to one of his friendsand other friends, the victim expressed his regrets for having teased hisgirl friend and requested her to pardon him. The third suicide noteaddressed to his friends reveals that he was happy in the college alongwith his friends. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. This Court is constrained to state that the above saidsuicide notes came into the picture only subsequently and not at the timeof giving the complaint. Assuming that the said suicide notes aregenuine, this Court is of the considered view that the said suicide notesonly reflect the feelings of the victim about the improper correctionsystem of answer papers by the University. From the reading of thesuicide notes, it is not possible to conclude that the victim waspersonally known to the petitioner and the petitioner was having anygrudge against the victim to award less marks. Therefore, this Court hasno hesitation to hold that there is absolutely no material available onrecord to establish that the petitioner had any motive or intention toinstigate the victim to commit suicide by awarding less marks.13. Section 107 I.P.C. reads here under:-A person abets the doing of a thing, who --First – Instigates any person to do that thing; orSecondly – Engages with one or more other person or persons in anyconspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omissiontakes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing ofthat thing; orThirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, thedoing of the thing.Explanation 1: A person who, by wilful misrepresentation or by wilfulconcealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarilycauses of procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done,is said to instigate the doing of that thing.14. Section 306 I.P.C. reads thus:If any person commits suicide, whoever, abets the commission ofsuch suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descriptionfor a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.15. A reading of the above said two sections makes it crystalclear that the ingredients contemplated under the above said sections arenot made out by the materials available on record in this case.16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of RandhirSingh v. State of Punjab (2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 56) as follows:-" Abetment involves a mental process of instigating aperson or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing.In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental processof entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. Moreactive role which can be described as instigating or aiding the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to beabetting the commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C."17. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court asstated above, there should be an active role played by the accused, whichcan be described as instigating or aiding to commit the suicide. In theinstant case, there is absolutely no material available on record to showthat the petitioner played active role, which can be described asinstigating or aiding the victim to commit the suicide. Even the onlypiece of material available on record viz. the suicide notes do notdisclose the above said ingredients constituting the offence under Section306 I.P.C.18. In yet another decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal (AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 1775)has held as follows:-" No averment in alleged suicide note that accused hadcaused any harm to deceased or was in any way responsible fordelay in paying salary to him – no reference of any act orincidence in alleged suicide note whereby accused has committedany wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigateddeceased in committing act of suicide – it cannot be said thataccused had in any way instigated deceased to commit suicide."19. The above said principle laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. In thiscase also, a reading of the suicide note does not specifically refer aboutthe conduct of the petitioner and does not disclose that the petitionerhas committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided orinstigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. Assuming thatthe petitioner has corrected the answer papers in a negligent manner, thatitself is not sufficient to mulct the petitioner for the allegation ofcommitting any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigatedthe victim to commit suicide.20. A perusal of the original records produced by the learnedPublic Prosecutor, Pondicherry shows that the communication sent by theInvestigating Agency to the Director of prosecution contains the followingstatement:- " It is submitted that, Thiru Ravikumar (the petitionerherein), Lecturer, working in Annamalai University, Chidambaram,Tamil Nadu, awarded fail mark of 20 at the time of initialcorrection to the said student. It is very negligent on the partof said Thiru Ravikumar, but he made a correction without havingany intention with the student Thiru S.Irwin Pyari Abivarma. Hemade correction based on dummy numbers which was given by theUniversity authorities, as per the usual customs. Hence there isno chance for intention to the said Thiru Ravikumar, Lecturer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for awarding of very lesser marks to that answer sheet ofdeceased Irwin Pyari Abivarma. During the time of re-valuationit was awarded by Dr.P.Vivekanandan and Thiru T.Sundararaj as 54and 61 respectively."21. There is absolutely no two opinion that the teaching staffshould be more responsible and careful in correcting the answer papers ofthe students. But, at the same time, the younger generation viz., thestudents cannot resort to take the extreme step of putting an end to theirlife merely on the ground of getting lesser marks in the examination. Itis always open to them to ask for re-valuation. Even in this case, afterre-valuation, the victim secured more marks.22. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court has nohesitation to hold that allowing the proceedings to continue against thepetitioner would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court andas such, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.8 of2006 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, is liableto be quashed and accordingly, quashed and the criminal original petitionis allowed. Connected M.P.No.1/2006 is Closed.23. Before parting with this case, this Court is constrained tomake the following observations:- " Every year about 2% of suicides (n=2283) in India are committedfollowing failure in exams, out of which 1280 are males and 1003are females. (1) Around 68% of these suicides are from the fivestates of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu andWest Bengal. In Tamil Nadu 314 (M = 59, F = 155) committedsuicide due to failure in exams.There are a variety of factors which lead to these suicides whichcan be broadly classified into individual, family, educational,social and environmental factors.(i) Over anxious and over ambitious parents:Till 8thstandard, the students are encouraged toparticipate in a variety of extra-curricular activities. Allthese are completely eliminated once they reach class 10th or 12thand they are forced to do nothing but study.(ii) Comparison among their own children and others.(iii) Criticism within the family.(iv) Over expectation.(v) The system of education has also become highly competitive.(vi) A system of education which emphasizes only on scoringmarks.(vii) Pressure on the teachers from administration and parents.(viii) Lack of career guidance and counselling in schools. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prevention strategies:(i)Educational reforms which can bea. Grading of marks:b. Multiple evaluation than a single evaluation.2.Pre and post exam counselling for students, teachers andparents in all the schools.3.Provision of counsellors in all the schools or at least ateacher who is trained." [ Reference : 1. National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 2005.2. Dr.G.Gururaj et al (2004). Risk factors to completed suicide in a case control study. Injury control and safety prevention. Vol.II, No.3 ).183-191.3. Vijayakumar L. et al (2005). Suicide in Developing Countries. Prevention Efforts. Crisis. Vol.26:3 P.120-124. ]The above findings make it crystal clear that the parents haveto play a leading role to create courage and self confidence among theirchildren. It is also equally very emergent and essential that everyschool or educational institution should provide counselling system tocreate courage and self confidence among the students to face thechallenges in their career. Therefore, in view of the above said serious problem resultingin the death of brilliant students, this Court is constrained to suggestthat the educational institutions both private and Government shouldprovide Pre and Post Exam Counselling System for the students, teachersand parents with a view to create positive thinking, courage and selfconfidence among the students to enable them to march towards a gloriousfuture career. sbi Sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Station House Officer, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Pondicherry, Pondicherry District. 2.The Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.3.-do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.4.The Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry. +1 cc to Mr.S.Vijayan, Advocate Sr.No.30740.PPV(CO)dcp/22.5.07 Crl.O.P.No.22507 of 2006