Whether S 306 of IPC will be applicable if the person committing suicide survives?

Under the general principle of law embodied in Section 511 I.P.C. every offence can be attempted also. In jurisprudential theory intention, preparation, attempt and commission are the four specific stages of commission of every crime, from principle and precedent I am unable to accept the theory that so far as the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is concerned, this third step/phase must be held to be absent and non-existent in all cases. I take the view that an attempt to commit the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is certainly possible and there is no warrant for the presumption that there cannot ever be a conviction for an offence under Section 306 r/w. 511 I.P.C. If a person abets the commission of suicide and the abetment does not succeed and fructify into a completed offence under Section 306 I.P.C. it must, according to me certainly, be held to fall within the sweep of Section 306 r/w. 511 I.P.C.{Para 21}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

B.A. No. 7311 of 2007

Decided On: 18.12.2007

 Berin P. Varghese and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Basant, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/0590/2007

Print Page

Ragging is human rights violation: HC

BILASPUR: Chhattisgarh high court has held that ragging is a systematized form of human rights abuse which continues unabated despite it being a cognizable, non-bailable offence. Refusing to grant regular bail to an accused in an alleged ragging case that led to the suicide of a first year MBBS student on Monday, the bench of Justice Sanjay K Agrawal said in his order that cited an apex court order to point out that "ragging in essence is a human rights abuse. Ragging can be in various forms-physical abuse or mental harassment. In present times, shocking incidents of ragging have come to notice." 

The order further quoted "The student is physically tortured or psychologically terrorized. All human beings should be free to claim, as a matter of right, for life if dignity but when it is intentionally or recklessly damaged or departed then the person's human rights are abused; in that sense ragging is the best example of human rights' abuse."

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by college if there is complaint of ragging of girl student

 This Court is very serious in looking at the present writ petition, as the petitioner herein was meted out with endless mental torture viz., ragging at the hands of her seniors, (whose names were mentioned in the preceding paragraph) in the institution, in which she opted to study for her academic progress. When a student joins in an institution with ambition of prospective future, it is incumbent on the part of the Principal of the said institution to look after their welfare and exhibit her responsibility in such a way that the students' ambitions having been accomplished. But, in the present case, the Principal of the second respondent institution thoroughly failed to take action on the so-called senior students, who headed ragging in the said institution. The Principal, after coming to know or after receiving the complaint, as per Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999, ought to have enquired into the complaint immediately within 72 hours, either by herself or through a Senior teaching staff working in the institution. However, she failed to enquire into the complaint. On the other hand, with no other option, the petitioner and her father made a written complaint to the police station and the police duly enquired the matter headed by Anti Ragging Committee.

12. Before parting with the case, this Court expresses its total dissatisfaction on the second respondent institution having failed to comply with the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was inaction on the Management of the second respondent institution and as such, they are bound to refund the amount of Rs.35,250/- paid by the petitioner for counselling and admission in the second respondent institution. Since it is stated in the counter that they have already returned caution deposit towards admission fees in the institute and hostel, they are directed to pay the above said amount deducting the amount already paid by them.

Madras High Court

Neelam Shetty vs R3 And R4 Impleaded As Per Order on 27 February, 2013

Citation; AIR 2013 Madras 253

Print Page