V.P.Singh vs The State Of Punjab

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2103/2010

V.P.SINGH ETC. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

Crl. A. No. 2104/2010

Crl. A. No. 2105/2010

O R D E R

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

The criminal justice system of ours can itself be

a punishment! It is exactly what has happened in this

case. 14 years on an issue of abetment of suicide in an

episode where a student was reprimanded for misconduct

in the College and on endeavor to take disciplinary

action and call the father, though the parent did not

turn up and subsequently the child committed suicide. An

unfortunate situation! However, we are concerned with

the issue whether there is any element of an abetment to

Signature Not Verified suicide in the present case which was at the threshold Digitally signed by RASHMI DHYANI Date: 2022.11.28 17:20:21 IST Reason: of charges having been framed.

1 On 16.4.2008, the deceased viz. Mr. Gaurav Wahi

was attending the last lecture under Mr. Nitin Shyam,

one of the accused, and is alleged to have misbehaved

with him in the class under the influence of alcohol.

When Mr. Shyam asked Mr. Gaurav to leave the class, he

ran out of the class. This incident was reported by Mr.

Nitin Shyam to Mr. Sarabjit Singh, the acting Head of

the Department. The incident was reported in writing by

Mr. Nitin Shyam on the next date i.e. 17.4.2008 to the

then Head of the Department. An order was passed

suspending the deceased from the class and calling upon

him to call his parents as an exercise of legitimate

disciplinary action.

To redeem himself, Mr. Gaurav Wahi, the deceased

wrote a letter of apology to the Head of the Department

on 21.4.2008 in a way accepting the incident but denying

that he was under the influence of alcohol. On

23.4.2008, the Principal, Mr. V. P. Singh issued a

notice whereby he directed action against two students

including the deceased in separate incidents calling for

a security amount of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with

the College as security deposit as a disciplinary

exercise and to bring the parents to the office. This

2 deposit was to be refunded at the end of completion of

course.

Unfortunately the deceased, instead of complying

with the disciplinary action, chose to take his own life

by jumping in the canal. Before doing so, he sent an SMS

to his brother viz. Mr. Himmat Wahi. The purport of the

message when translated into English and even read in

the original language, was an intimation that he was

jumping into the deep side of the river. He stated that

amongst all, he loved his mother the most and wanted his

father not to be troubled. The obvious purport of this

is that while he was closest to his mother, he sought to

anticipate that his father may be blamed for the episode

and that the father should not be troubled by it.

On the complaint of the father, an FIR No.62 of

2008 was registered at P.S. Sardar Rupnagar District,

Punjab on 29.4.2008 under Section 306 of Indian Penal

Code (IPC) on the complaint that the said suicide was

instigated by the three accused i.e. the teacher, the

Head of the Department and the Principal.

It is interesting to note that on the bail

3 application on 06.8.2008, one of the factors which

weighed with the High Court while granting bail was that

the conduct could not be construed to make the accused

liable for offence under Section 306 of IPC as it was to

ensure discipline in the class and the campus and even

if the teachers are stated to be acting harshly, it

could not be said that they wanted to incite, urge or

provoke the deceased to commit suicide.

On investigation the charge sheet was filed on

13.9.2008 and charges were framed on 16.4.2009.

Aggrieved by the said order, three accused preferred

criminal revision petition before the High Court which

was dismissed on 30.4.2009 with a cryptic order only

stating that the proceedings were at an early stage and

did not call for any interference.

The present appeals were preferred assailing that

order and interim stay was granted at the threshold. The

trial of course naturally did not proceed in view of the

stay by this Court. The matter has rested at that for

the last thirteen years!

In the present appeal proceedings, the appellants

4 were called upon to file the complete records of the

trial Court proceedings vide order dated 26.9.2019 which

has been accordingly filed.

We have heard learned counsel for parties and

examined the record.

If we turn to the complaint, the charge sheet is

simply an incorporation of what the complainant has

said. It is the say of the father, complainant (who was

certainly not present to witness what happened) that

some students were causing the noise and it was not the

son/deceased. The son stated that he was not at fault

but he was shouted at by Mr. Nitin Shyam to go out of

the classroom. The deceased did so and closed the door.

It is alleged that thereafter Mr. Nitin Shyam ran after

the son and caught hold of him by the arm and dragged

him towards the office of the Head of the Department. On

the next day i.e. 17.4.2008, when the deceased went to

college, he found the notice to him pasted on their

notice board recording that he had been suspended and

calling upon his parents, failing which, he will not be

permitted to appear in the examination. He was not

permitted to enter the classroom on 17.4.2008 and even

5 on making a grievance to the Head of the Department, he

did not succeed as he was threatened to spoil his career

but on meeting Mr. Nitin Shyam, he was turned away and

also stated that if he were to die, it would not bother

him. Since nothing happened for the next few days

despite the best endeavour of the deceased, he committed

suicide.

On perusal of the charge sheet, it was found that

there is no other independent witness whose statement

was recorded or who is cited as a witness to the actual

incident. In view of the letter exchanged including his

apology letter, it is quite obvious that the complaint

has embellishments and endeavour to make out a case of

abetment of suicide. If one may say, on even reading of

the charge sheet, on the basis of the complaint as it

is, there is still no case made out for abetment of

suicide.

Learned senior counsel for the appellants has

relied inter alia on the judgment of this Court in “S.

S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr.” reported as

(2010) 12 SCC 190 more specifically paragraph 24 & 25.

The Court examined the matter in the conspectus of the

6 prevalent legal position in the Country. While suicide

by itself is not an offence but an attempt to suicide is

an offence under Section 309 of IPC. The Court

thereafter turned to the definition of abetment under

Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:-

“107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing”

In the conspectus of the different judgments

referred to in that case it was opined that the words

“instigation” and “goading” should be intention to

provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the

latter. While each person’s suicidability pattern is

different from others, each person has his own idea of

self-esteem and self-respect and therefore it was

7 difficult to lay down any straightjacket formula in

dealing with such cases. In this context paragraph 25

reads as under:-

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment

in “Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.”

reported as 2002 (5) SCC 371 to contend that the opinion

of this Court is that even where a person stated that

his death would not make any difference or that he could

go and die. That itself would not amount to an

instigation in absence of mens rea.

One other judgment referred before us is in the

case of “State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and

Ors.” reported as 2019 (10) SCC 188 in which earlier

judgment in “Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh”

reported as (2001) 9 SCC 618 cited for approval setting

8 out the consideration of the scope of section 306 and

ingredients which are essential for abetment as set out

in Section 107 IPC. While interpreting the word

instigation it was observed in paragraph 20 of Ramesh

Kumar Case (Supra) as under:

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

In fact in Indrajit Kundu case (Supra) the

judgment referred to us in Sanju case (supra) was once

again referred to where the husband and wife’s quarrel

resulted in the husband telling the wife “to go and die”

and the suicide was committed two days later, was not

said to have proximity to the quarrel even if stated in

the suicide note.

9 To examine the factual matrix in the present case,

in view of the aforesaid legal position, we find not an

iota of material on record even assuming the complete

charge sheet to be correct which could lead to a

conviction in a case of abetment as there was absence of

the necessary ingredients to make the offence. While we

appreciate the anguish of a father who has lost a young

son, that cannot result in blaming the world (in the

present case, the institution and its teachers) for what

is a basic disciplinary action necessary for running the

institute. A contra position would create a lawless and

unmanageable situation in an educational institution.

The suicide note further shows that there is something

to be said about the relationship between the deceased

and his father where in fact the deceased thought that

his father could be blamed for the episode and thus

asked to not to trouble his father. The anguish of the

father ought not to have been converted into a case of

abetment of suicide and certainly the investigation and

the approach of the trial Court could have been more

realistic keeping in mind the surrounding facts and

circumstances in which the suicide episode occurred.

We thus set aside the order framing charges dated

10 16.4.2009 and impugned order of the High Court

sustaining the same and discharge the accused in respect

of FIR No.62 of 2008.

The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving

parties to bear their own costs.

………………………………………………………J. (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)

………………………………………………………J. (ABHAY S. OKA)

NEW DELHI 24th November, 2022

11 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 2103/2010

V.P.SINGH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

Crl.A. No. 2104/2010 (II-B)

Crl.A. No. 2105/2010 (II-B)

Date : 24-11-2022 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Adv.

Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Adv.

Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv.

Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Manoj Rajpoot, Adv.

Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s) Ms. Rooh-E-Hina Dua, AOR Mr. Harshit K., Adv.

Mr. Prem Malhotra, AOR

Respondent-in-person

12 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable order.

Pending application(s) stand disposed of.

(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(signed reportable order is placed on the file)

13