Sister Lily vs State of West Bengal & Another

Tapash Mookherjee, J.—The present revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the charge sheet being Charge sheet no. 456 of 2012 dated 15th July, 2012 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to Kotwali Police Station Case No. 570 of 2008 dated 29th September, 2008.

The facts leading to the submission of the aforesaid charge sheet in short may be summarised as follows:

One Koyel Pal was a student of Class- IX of St. Merry''s School, Coochbehar. On 23.9.2008 she was called in the chamber of the principal of the school, Sister Lily, the accused in the aforesaid case along with another student named Diptakshi Chaki for certain misconducts allegedly committed by those two students and both of them were allegedly scolded by Sister Lily and Koyel was allegedly assaulted also, by the Sister Lity.

Koyel narrated all those incidents to her parents on that day. Koyel attended her classes on three days thereafter. On 3rd day, i. e., on 26.9.2008 Koyel committed suicide after return to house from School by taking poison in her own house when she was staying alone and her parents were in their respective offices.

Koyel''s father came to know of the suicide in the afternoon from a telephonic call from one of his immediate neighbours and after having received the information, he rushed to the Hospital here he found his daughter Koyel, dead.

Subsequently, Koyel''s father submitted a written complaint on 27th September, 2008 alleging that his daughter Koyel committed suicide because of the mental and physical torture upon her by Sister Lily on three consecutive days and on the basis of that written complaint Kotwali Policie Station Case No. 570 of 2008 dated 27.9.2008 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was started against Sister Lily, the Principal of the St. Merry''s School, Coochbehar.

After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against Sister Lily under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of the Learned Judge, Special Court�cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coochbehar ( G.R. Case No. 573 of 2008 ).

Being aggrieved by such order of taking cognizance on such charge sheet and subsequent commitment of the case to the Sessions Court, Sister Lily, the sole accused in the case filed the present revisional application.

Mr. Ahmed, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the materials collected during the investigation of the case is not at all sufficient to constitute any offence of abatement of suicide and according to him to prove a case of abatement of suicide, the ingredients of "abatement" stated in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code has to be established and such legal necessity is not satisfied in the present case.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner has discussed in detail the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as other materials collected in the case during investigation and referring to all those materials on record, Mr. Ahmed, has forcefully argued that continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner would be a gross abuse of the process of law and as such the proceeding in question should be immediately quashed.

Mr. Keshri, Learned Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that since a prima facie case has been established against the accused, the charge sheet has been submitted and hence the proceeding should not be quashed.

In spite of notice, the de facto complainant, i. e., the father of the deceased has not appeared before this Court.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner by physical and mental torture abated the suicide of the daughter of the de facto complainant. During investigation 26 witnesses have been examined by the Investigating Officer, including the Autopsy Surgeon and other formal witnesses.

The parents of the deceased in their statements stated that their daughter Koyel was scolded and assaulted too, by the petitioner on 23.9.2008 which was disclosed to them by their daughter and their daughter expressed her reluctance to continue her study in that school for such reason, but as it was in the mid way of the academic session, they could not change the school. As a result, their daughter went to the school on 24.9.2008, 25.9.2008 and 26.9.2008. They further stated that on 26.9.2008 their daughter committed suicide after return from her school. Both of them were in their respective offices and they found the dead body of their daughter in the Hospital. So, they had no communication with their daughter after their daughter had returned from her school on 26.09.2008.

Five neighbours of the de facto complainant were examined in the case but none of them had any idea as to why Koyel committed suicide, as claimed by each of them.

Some of the teachers of the school numbering seven were examined. All of them excepting one, stated only that the petitioner is a teacher of strong principles and in favour of imposing strong discipline in the school. All of them stated that they had seen the petitioner scolding students whenever any mistake is committed by any student of the school.

However, one of such teacher has stated that he has seen the petitioner sometimes inflicting corporal punishments also on the students. However, none of them had any direct knowledge as to what happened in the school on the date of the suicide of the deceased. Two near relatives of the deceased have also been examined but none of them have any direct knowledge about the cause of suicide of the deceased. One Diptakshi Chaki, is the most vital witness in the case according to Mr. Keshri, Learned Advocate for the State. She was a classmate as well as a good friend of the deceased. She has stated that the deceased once introduced a boy to her, who used to often disturb her over telephone and when such fact was known to her grand father, her grand father reported the incidents to the petitioner and thereafter she as well as the deceased was called by the petitioner. Diptakshi has further stated that both she and deceased were admonished by the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid incidents. Diptakshi''s grand father corroborated Diptakshi on the point.

However, Diptakshi has also stated that she herself has not seen the deceased being assaulted by the petitioner. The other witnesses examined were the witnesses having no direct knowledge about any fact in issue in the case. No mark of injury on the person of the deceased is noted either in the inquest report or in the Postmortem report.

In fact, the only relevant and important evidence collected against the petitioner is that on 23rd September, 2008. The deceased and her classmate Diptakshi were scolded by the petitioner for some alleged misconducts. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was physically assaulted on the day of the suicide of the deceased.

The term abatement has not been defined in Section 306 of the I.P.C. It has been defined in Section 107 of the Penal Code which runs as follows:-

Abatement of a thing:- A person abets the doing of a thing, who �

First- instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly ��������������������..

According to Mr. Keshari, the present case falls within such first clause of Section 107 of the Penal Code.

In the case reported in 2001 Cr. LJ 4724 (Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh) it has been laid down by the Apex Court that "instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, insist or encourage to do an act ".

In the case reported in (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701 (Kishori Lal v. State of M. P) also cited by Mr. Ahmed, the term ''instigate'' has been defined as an act to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing.

In another case reported in (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 917 (Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) also cited by Mr. Ahmed, it has been held "abatement involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In order to convict a person under Section 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence it also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide."

Mens rea is a very important criterion of an offence of abatement of suicide.

As discussed above, the evidence collected in the case at best suggests that the deceased was scolded and physically harassed by the petitioner on 23.9.2008 for some alleged misconduct. The deceased attended the school on 24th, 25th and 26th thereafter but there is no iota of evidence to show as to what happened in those three days. There is no evidence collected to show that the deceased was man handled in any way by the petitioner on the day of suicide of the deceased. In fact, what happened to the deceased in the school on 26th cannot be ascertained from any material collected.

The Principal of School has every responsibility to see that discipline is maintained in the School and whenever a student commits any mistake which is very much usual, the Principal or any teacher of a school can take into task any such erring student for correction but if a student commits suicide for such act of the teacher, the teacher cannot be held responsible for this unless, it is strongly proved that such punishment is disproportionate to a large extent coupled with malice on the part of the teacher.

In the present case the petitioner had no personal grudge against the deceased. None has alleged even any such personal dislike of the petitioner towards the deceased. Whatever had been done by the petitioner had been done just for the correction and betterment of the deceased.

The father of the deceased himself has stated that on 23rd his daughter expressed her reluctance to continue study in the same school. But the change of school at that stage was not feasible. May be so, that the deceased was sentimentally upset for it. Some children, nowadays are hypersensitive and act and conduct of such a hypersensitive boy or girl is sometime unpredictable. F.I.R. was lodged on mere suspicion only as the F.I.R. maker himself stated in it. In fact what is the real cause of the suicide of the deceased remains a mystery even after the full blown up investigation of the case.

I share the pain and agony of a parent having lost a school going daughter but somebody should be punished to heal up such wound, is not a right thought, or desirable.

Having thus considered all the materials collected in the case during investigation, I have no hesitation to hold that continuation of the proceeding in question any further would be nothing but abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice. All further proceeding of the Session Case No.441 of 2012 arising out of G.R No.573 of 2008 (Kotwali P.S case No.570 of 2008 dated 27.9.2008 under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code) pending in the Court of Learned Judge, Special Court, Coochbehar, is, therefore, quashed. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner stands discharged. CRR No.1367 of 2013 is accordingly allowed. Send a copy of this order of the aforesaid Court below.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties on the usual undertaking.