N.Anjali Devi v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANCrl.OP.No.24858/2006Cr.MP.NO.1/20061.N.Anjali Devi2.C.Veeran ..PetitionersVsState By1.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram. 2.Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station Villupuram District ..RespondentsPrayer:- This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for therecords in PRC.No.1/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II,Ulundurpet and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathia ChandranFor Respondents :Mr.S.Senthilmurugan for PP-RR1&2ORDER This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for therecords 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 disposalof this Criminal Original Petition, are as follows:-The Petitioners are the Secondary Grade Teachers, workingin the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruvennainallur,Villupuram District. The 2nd Petitioner worked in the said School from28.7.2004 to 13.9.2005 as a Science Teacher and he has beentransferred and posted at Kumanantholu in Andipatti Taluk, TheniDistrict. The 1st Petitioner is working in the same School. On14.7.2005 at about 12.15 p.m., one Rani, Anganvadi Teacher reportedto the Teachers that some one had taken a sum of Rs.1200/- from herbag, 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 theAnganvadi, might have stolen the money. Accordingly, the Petitionerscalled for those students and their bags were searched. A fewminutes thereafter, a student by name Udaya alias Saranya, thedeceased herein gave Rs.100/- to the Petitioners, claiming that thesaid amount was found in the bag of one Kavitha, a co-student.Thereafter, Udaya @ Saranya and six other students were taken to themale staff room and they were enquired by the lady teachers. At thattime, Udaya @ Saranya took Rs.600/- from her Churidhar pocket andhanded 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 wasappraised of the incident happened in the School. It is stated thatArumugam gave an undertaking letter, stating that he would warn hisdaughter and such things would not happen again in future and leftthe School. 3. After, the said incident, the deceased Udaya @ Saranyawas in the School during lunch period and attended the post sessionclasses and left the School at 4.20 pm. Thereafter, on an enquiry,the Petitioners had come to know that Udaya @ Saranya had immolatedherself and was taken to the Government Hospital at Villupuram, whereshe had given a dying declaration to the Judicial Magistrate, statingthat since the Petitioners scolded her that she had stolen the moneyand the 2nd Petitioner remarked to her to go and die and as she wasso ashamed, she had immolated herself.4. On the complaint given by the father of the deceasedgirl, FIR was registered in Cr.No.335/05 initially under Sections 309read with 109 of IPC. Later the deceased died on 16.7.2005 and theoffence was altered into one under Section 306 of IPC and thePetitioners have been arrayed as the accused. 5. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they being theresponsible teachers acted according to their conscience and theyhave done nothing to instigate or abet the suicide committed by thedeceased girl and the utterances alleged to have been made by thePetitioners does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumptionthat those words would be carried out in all events.6. Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, the learned counsel for thePetitioners would submit that none of the Petitioners have done anyact, which either instigated or abetted the suicide committed by thedeceased girl and as she was ashamed of her faults, she has committedsuicide and if the Petitioners are to face the ordeal of trial, thenthe same only would result in serious miscarriage of justice andamount to abuse of process of law. He would submit that the basicingredients for the offence of abetment as defined under Section 107of IPC are absent, as there was no intention whatsoever on the partof 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 Petitionerswas very natural, as any prudent man would only try to find out as towho has stolen the money and the real fact is that the deceased girlhad stolen the money and the same was exposed before the otherstudents, which had led her to commit suicide. Therefore, he wouldcontend that the commission of suicide by the deceased girl was notthe direct result of the conduct of the Petitioners. 7. Mr.S.Senthilmurugan, representing the learned PublicProsecutor would submit that the deceased girl had given a statementbefore her death and she had pointed out to the conduct of thePetitioners, in telling her to go and die than to live and the 1stPetitioner had slapped her on her cheek and scolded her for stealingthe money. According to him, the commission of suicide by thedeceased girl was the direct result of the utterance made by thePetitioners.8. The learned counsel for the Petitioners drew theattention of this court to a catena of decisions of the HonourableSupreme Court, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has consistentlyheld that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion withoutintending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be aninstigation. 9. In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of MP andanother [1995-Supp-3-SCC-438], the accused was charged for an offenceunder Section 306 of IPC on the ground that the accused during thequarrel is said to have remarked to the deceased to go and die andthe Honourable Supreme Court, was of the view that mere words utteredby the accused to the deceased to go and die were not even primafacie 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 Section306 of IPC based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, whichreads as under:-"My mother in law and husband and sister in law (husband'selder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me andabused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a secondtime. He has illicit connections with my sister in law.Because of those reasons and being harassed I want to dieby burning."The Honourable Supreme Court, considering the definition of abetmentunder Section 107 of IPC, found that the charge and conviction of theaccused in the above said case for the offence under Section 306 ofIPC is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to thedeceased. The Apex Court further held that none of the ingredientsof 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 ofChhattisgarh [2001-9-SCC-618], the Honourable Supreme Court, whileconsidering the charge framed and conviction for the offence underSection 306 of IPC on the basis of the dying declaration recorded bythe Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previouslythere had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and onthe day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband, who hadsaid that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereaftershe had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire, acquitting theaccused, the said:-"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion withoutintending the consequences to actually follow cannot besaid to be instigation. If it transpires to the courtthat a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive toordinary petulance, discord and difference in domesticlife quite common to the society to which the victimbelonged and such petulance discord and difference werenot expected to induce a similarly circumstancedindividual in a given society to commit suicide, theconscience of the court should not be satisfied for basinga finding that the accused charged for abetting theoffence of suicide should be found guilty."12. Reverting to the facts of the case, the statement ofthe witnesses made under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure wouldreveal that the stolen money had been recovered from the deceasedgirl and she was reprimanded by the Teachers more particularly thePetitioners herein for stealing the money. In the dying declaration,the deceased girl had stated that the 2nd Petitioner remarked her togo and die and the 1st Petitioner slapped on her cheek and scolded herin harsh words. Even assuming that the Petitioners have acted in theabove said manner and uttered the above words as projected by theProsecution, it is to be seen as to whether the said utterance wouldby itself constitute the ingredients of 'instigation'.13. The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging todo some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Thepresence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant ofinstigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in aquarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered withmens rea. Secondly, the said abusive words is said to have beenuttered to the deceased by the Petitioners, when they had come toknow that the deceased had stolen the money from the bag of theAnganvadi Teacher and money was also recovered from her. Thirdly,the deceased had her lunch in the School and attended the post lunchsession classes and left the School only after it was over and shehad committed suicide only after reaching the home. All thesefactors would clearly point out that it could not be a direct resultof 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 tellingthe deceased to go and die would by itself not constitute theingredients of instigation and presence of mens rea is necessaryconcomitant of instigation. Holding so, the Honourable Supreme Courtquashed the charge sheet framed under Section 306 of IPC on theground that the ingredients of abetment is totally absent.15. One important thing to be noted in this case is thatthe Petitioners being the Teachers of the Government School in theinterest of the Institution correct any mistake done by the studentin order to cultivate good habits and get rid of bad habits, such asstealing money. In fact, the father of the deceased girl had beensummoned and it is stated that he gave a letter of apology for theconduct of his daughter and also undertook that the same would notrecur again. In such view of the matter, the act of the petitionerscannot 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 HeadMistress of a School wrongly struck off the name of the deceased fromthe Register of the Students in Class X, which induced the deceasedto commit suicide and the High Court of Gujarat has held that therewas no evidence showing that the accused had acted at any point oftime, suggested or hinted for commission of suicide and when theaccused was entitled to correct any wrong order, as in fact deceasedhad not passed her class IX examination, no case of instigation orabetment 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 orderof the High Court, quashed the charge sheet filed under Section 306of IPC on the ground that the offence under Section would stand onlyif there is an abetment for the commission of crime.18. In a very recent decision rendered in the case ofSonti Ramakrishna Vs. Sonti Shanthi Shree and another [2009-1-SCC-554], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that though normallythreshold interference should not be made under Section 482 Code ofCriminal Procedure, quashing of the complaint on facts was just andnecessary. It has also held that words uttered in a fit of anger oremotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.19. By applying the above said well settled principlespronunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in a catena of decisionscited supra to the present case, on looking into the dyingdeclaration of the deceased, which according to the learned PublicProsecutor is also a strong evidence in favour of the Prosecution, itis clear that the stolen money had been recovered only from thedeceased 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 thewitnesses would suggest that she felt ashamed and depressed as herfather was also summoned by the School and was informed about the actdone by the deceased. In the said circumstances, certainly, it cannotbe said the Petitioners had in any way instigated the deceased tocommit suicide or was responsible for the commission of suicide bythe deceased girl.20. Taking into consideration of the totality of thematerials on record and facts and circumstances of the case, I am ofthe considered view that the Petitioners cannot be held responsiblefor the commission of suicide committed by the deceased girl, asthere was no instigation or abetment on the part of the Petitionersin the commission of suicide by the deceased girl. Therefore, thecharge sheet filed against the Petitioners for the offence underSection 306 of IPC in PRC.No.1/2006 is liable to be quashed andaccordingly, it is quashed.21. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition isallowed. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarSrcm To1. 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.24858/2006RSY (CO)GSK 10.08.2009.