Teacher Likely To Use Harsh Language To Discipline Student: Punjab & Haryana HC Discharges Teacher Accused Of Abetment Of Suicide Of Minor Student

Observing that "post of a teacher require disciplining a student", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has discharged a teacher from charges of abetment to suicide of a minor student who allegedly  harassed her in school.

The Court found that the student was weak in studies "for which she was reprimanded". Even otherwise, neither the FIR nor the suicide note refer to any specific instances of acute harassment amounting to abetment, it said.

While opining that "no offence is made out", Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "Disciplining could include taking steps to curb their unruly behaviour or pushing them harder to improve their grades. In either situation, a Teacher is likely to use harsh and aggressive language. The majority of students are unlikely to get affected by the act, conduct or language of a Teacher."

If a particular student, who has a hypersensitive nature, commits suicide, then it would indeed be a travesty of justice that a well-meaning Teacher would have to face Trial for abetment in such a scenario, the Court added.

However the Court clarified that if there is evidence to suggest that the act and conduct of a Teacher was particularly harsh towards a specific student and there were multiple specific incidents of acute harassment then the situation would be completely different.

The Court was hearing revision petition filed by a school teacher, against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the charge-sheet whereby a charge for the offence punishable under Section 305 IPC has been framed against him.

In 2019, Naresh Kapoor was booked for abatement to suicide of his minor student. It was alleged that as per the suicide note recovered from the person of the deceased, the extreme steps to commit suicide had been taken on account of the harassment meted-out to the deceased by the petitioner-Naresh Kapoor who was her Mathematics Teacher in school.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the interaction between Kapoor and the deceased in the days immediately preceding the suicide was negligible, the element of abetment was missing in the present case.

It was also submitted that a Three-member Committee formed by the school in accordance with the Protection of Child Rights Act, 2001 had found that  Kapoor did not harass the deceased, in fact he was a good Teacher and had always devoted time for the betterment of his students.

Kapoor was strict only when required to pull-up their performance. "He had never compelled any student for tuitions. No such complaint had ever been received from either the deceased or her parents about the conduct of the petitioner," he added.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to the Sections 107, 305 of IPC and High Court's decision in Harbhajan Sandhu v. State of Punjab and another, [CRM-M-34495 of 2021]  wherein it was held that:

“..to constitute abetment, there must be a proximate and live link between the occurrence and the subsequent suicide, inasmuch as, the instigation or illegal complained off omission or commission at the hands of the accused to the deceased must be the only factor, which subsequently led to him committing suicide."

Justice Bedi said mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such action on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.

"If a person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused are otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step to commit suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide," the judge said.

The Court added that therefore, "what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in view the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased."

Furthermore it said that even if the allegations against the accused were of such a nature that would drive an ordinary person to commit suicide, there must be a proximate and live link between the occurrence of extreme harassment and the subsequent suicide. The act complained off at the hands of the accused must be the only factor which subsequently led to the deceased committing suicide.

In the present case, perusing the FIR and the suicide note, the Court said that, "no specific incidents whatsoever have been pointed out by the complainant or the deceased which compelled the deceased to commit suicide."

"In fact, there has been absolutely no positive act on the part of the petitioner/accused to instigate or aid the deceased in committing of suicide. From the allegations and from the record, it has not been established that the petitioner/accused intended to push the deceased to such a situation that she would ultimately commit suicide. At the very best, what could be said is that the deceased was harassed and nothing more," it added.

The Court also took note of the decision of the independent Three Members Committee constituted by the School which concluded that the deceased was weak in studies and that the behaviour of the petitioner did not amount to harassment of students in general and the deceased in particular.

In the light of the above the Court opined that while it is true that charges can indeed be framed on the basis of strong suspicion, however, in the instant case, taking the allegations to be correct, "absolutely no offence whatsoever is made out."

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and the chargesheet.

P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mohit Saroha, AAG, Punjab.

Anil Kumar Spehia, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Title: Naresh Kapoor v. State of Punjab and anr.

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 131

Click here to read/download the order