Parochial & Myopic Mindset: Karnataka HC Declines To Quash Abetment To Suicide Case Against Teachers Who Threatened, Harrased Minor Girl For Talking To A Boy
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings of abetment to suicide of a minor initiated against two school teachers. The girl student committed suicide following the alleged harassment and threats issued by them on the ground that she was talking to a boy studying in the same school.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Roopesha and Sadananda said “Boys and girls are in the same classroom, if they talk to each other or become friends, it is ununderstandable as to how such acts could become subversive of discipline, as the entire projection by the petitioner is that they only wanted to discipline the children, particularly, the victim.”
It added “A child of 14 years is undoubtedly in the thick of adolescent behaviour. Therefore, it is here that they are needed to be dealt with compassion and not in this manner. It must be remembered that times have changed, and change we must, according to the changing times. Hope this becomes an eye-opener towards such a paradigm shift.”
As per the complaint filed by the mother of the deceased, the victim was repeatedly called by Roopesha on the ground that she was continuously talking to one boy. On being called to the school the mother indicated to the teachers that if there is any problem, the teacher should call her and not insult the child in front of other children.
However, it was stated that they did not stop, and on February 7, the victim out of frustration consumed rat poison on the school premises and succumbed to death in the hospital. The police on receiving the complaint filed a case under Sections 305, 506, 354D, 509 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The petitioners argued that they only wanted to discipline the child as talking to other boys was subversive of the discipline of the institution. Mere disciplining the child and the child consuming poison eventually leading to unfortunate death would not mean that the petitioners would become abettors.
The prosecution contended that it was the behaviour of the petitioners that led the child to get frustrated and commit suicide. Since the matter is still at the stage of investigation, it was stated that the Court at this stage should not interfere with these proceedings.
Findings:
The bench referring to the dying declaration given by the victim said, “The child succumbs to poison after the statement on 08-02-2024. The victim, even when breathing last, utters that the 1st petitioner (Roopesha) has harassed her and therefore, she has consumed poison. If the link in the chain of events and the dates are noticed, there exists complete proximity between the fateful incident and the events prior to that.”
The court expressed that on perusal of the complaint or the statement of the victim just before her death, it shocked the conscience of the Court, as to what 'discipline' the petitioners wanted to inculcate in her.
It said “Due to the parochial and myopic mind set of the petitioners. The petitioners have projected that the girl talking with another boy, is indiscipline and have harassed and threatened the victim. The victim who is of an adolescent age was unable to bear as to what would be the consequence. Therefore being a girl child and the men i.e., the petitioners threatening the girl child dragged the victim to depression. If only the teachers had dealt with the child in a manner appropriate, precious life of the child would not have been lost.”
Following this it held that the contents of the complaint and the statement, if read, the acts of the petitioners are unpardonable. It cannot be said that there is no proximity, no goading as is necessary in law. All the ingredients of Section 107 are present in the case at hand for it to become an offence under Section 305 of the IPC, albeit, prima facie, the Court held.
It added “In the case at hand, the pseudo indiscipline projected by these petitioners is that the victim was talking to another boy. It is highly ununderstandable as to what indiscipline that would be, if the girl talks with another boy. It can by no means be a taboo or indiscipline in any institution.”
The court was of the view that the act of the accused was unpardonable. It said that threatening an adolescent girl that they would circulate some video or harassing a girl that her marks are low because she is indulging in talking with a boy, are all acts which would impact the psyche of a girl, which has led to the most unfortunate event.
The court dismissed the petition and opined “The pedagogues cannot blissfully ignore taking note of human psychology, particularly of that of a child or an adolescent, during their pedagogy and try to enforce strict discipline in a wooden manner, or a lifeless manner. A need has arisen for all the pedagogues to ponder upon the manner in which they would want to enforce discipline.”
Appearance: Advocate Ashwin Joyston Kutinha, for Petitioner.
Additional Special Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesh, for R1.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
Case Title: Roopesha & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4941 OF 2024