New Delhi, 22 May 2025 Â The Supreme Court in a recent judgment by a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that just scolding the student has not the ingredients of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A Madras high court order was put on hold by the bench that dismissed charges against the school hostel in-charge of a teenage suicide case
FACTS:
In THANGAVEL vs. THE STATE, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR case, Thangavel (Appellant) was the correspondent (manager) of a school and a hostel thereof. Marimuthu (father of the deceased student), the State (by the Inspector of Police) were named as respondents.
There was what we called an incident that took place in the school hostel, whereby one student complained about another one (the deceased). Based on this complaint the state scolded the deceased student by the appellant.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
After that reprimand, the deceased student went to his room and committed suicide through the hanging of a nylon rope.
The appellant was charged with abetment to suicide as described in Section 108 of BNS (Section 306 IPC), and the allegation was that his scolding was what caused the suicide of the student.
APPELLANT:
The appellant argued out that this was a disciplinary action that he merely took routinely as he was a custodian and boss. His intentions were simply because he did not want the deceased to commit the same offense he is accused of doing again and to have some form of peace and harmony in the hostel.
He has also underlined that the rebuke had nothing to do with anyone personally between him and the deceased; that it arose at the instance of a complaint by some other student and that it had at least no animosity or malice in it.
There were no other claims of misconduct or inappropriate conduct that was laid against the appellant, except in this solitary case of scolding. He insisted that even in his most wild dreams he could not have ever imagined that such a reprimand might make the student commit suicide.
JUDGEMENT:
The bench of the Supreme Court in its ruling pointed out that, the scolding was one of the responsibilities of a correspondent and had happened as an act of correction or as a result of response to a complaint filed by another student against the deceased. According to the Court, such kind of punishment, when carried out without any personal animosity, cannot be construed as abetment to suicide, and no mens rea(Guilty Mind) could be imputed to the correspondent, in a corresponding case.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The appellant was conviction of an offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (which was simply Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code which applies to the abetment of suicide). The abetment as referred to in the Section 107 of the IPC, takes three possible forms:
Putting any one in mind to commit a given act;
The act or omission of conspiracy with one or more persons to do that act, proceeded by an act or omission which is in pursuance of the conspiracy;
The wilful helping to do that act either by act or by illegal omission.
In the present case, no deliberate assistance or incitement was present. The declaration of the appellant himself that he could not, in his wildest dream, imagine the result, shows want of intent which is an important factor in the implementation of abetment on the legal front.
Such a connotation is consistent with the various Supreme Court rulings. The Court warned and advised the courts that they should be very cautious in determining and weighing whether the cruelty or harassment which is claimed was actually the cause of suicide by the victim or not (State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 73). When the victim was hypersensitive to any common differences or discord and such conduct would not have ordinarily prompted a regular person to consume his life, the abetment will not be inferred.
Likewise in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Court directed that all statements or action do not attract instigation. The conduct of the accused must cause the view that there is the reasonable belief that he or she incited suicide of the victim. An incriminating word is not spoken by the one who spoke the word in the instant of passion or in uttering it without any intention to cause suicide.
Moreover, in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750 the apex court pointed out that there should be concrete mens rea (intent) to either drive the individual to make a suicide attempt and the active or direct role played by the offender who therefore, influences this action by the victim. Conviction is not possible in such a case without any reasonable evidence of abetment.
To conclude, it can be seen that there was no deliberate assistance or provocation on the side of the appellant as can be seen in his declaration and established by the precedents in the Supreme Court which shows that the necessary elements of abetment of suicide were not present in the matter.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
