Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find
it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted
by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, no normal person
could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a
complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to
the student so scolded taking his own life. Further, as
submitted, such scolding was the least, a correspondent was
required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the
deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial
measures effected. In the considered opinion of this Court,
under such admitted factual position, no mens rea can be
attributed to the appellant much less, with regard to
abatement of suicide committed by the deceased. {Para 8}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.9099 OF 2024
THANGAVEL Vs THE STATE, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is filed against the order dated
14.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
in Crl.R.C. No.682 of 2024 by which prayer of the appellant
for discharge has been rejected.
4. The appellant was accused in FIR No.01/2014 registered
by CBCID for the offences punishable under Sections 306 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and 174 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, charges were framed
against him under Section 306 of the IPC. Challenge to the
same before the High Court was negated.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an
incident occurred where the appellant being a correspondent
for the management, being in-charge of running a school and
1
hostel, where an incident is said to have been occurred and
in relation to which allegation was made by another student
against the deceased, based on which the appellant had
scolded the deceased due to which the deceased had locked
himself in a room and hanged himself with a nylon rope. It
was submitted that the response of the appellant being the
correspondent was justified and it was just a chiding as a
guardian to ensure that the deceased did not repeat the
offence and there was peace and tranquility in the hostel. It
was further submitted that there was nothing personal between
the appellant and the deceased and only on a complaint by
another student, such reprimanding was meted out to the
deceased. It was further contended that except for this, no
other role has been attributed to the appellant and the
appellant could not, even in his wildest dreams, have
imagined that such scolding would lead to the deceased taking
his life and thus, there was absolutely no criminal intent
much less to cause the deceased to take his life.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu
fairly submits that there does not appear to be any valid
ground for charging the appellant under Section 306 of the
IPC.
7. Despite valid service of notice, respondent No.2, who
is the complainant and father of the deceased student, has
not appeared in the present proceedings.
8. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find
it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted
by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, no normal person
could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a
complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to
the student so scolded taking his own life. Further, as
submitted, such scolding was the least, a correspondent was
required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the
deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial
measures effected. In the considered opinion of this Court,
under such admitted factual position, no mens rea can be
attributed to the appellant much less, with regard to
abatement of suicide committed by the deceased.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order framing
charge against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC in
connection with FIR No.01/2024 registered by CBCID stands set
aside. The appellant stands discharged in the said case.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
....................J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
....................J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 22, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment