Post Of Teacher Requires Disciplining Students: Punjab & Haryana HC Discharges Teacher From Abetment Of Suicide Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has discharged a teacher from charges of abetment to suicide of a minor student, emphasizing that disciplining students might involve stern actions, which do not necessarily constitute abetment to suicide.

While discharging the teacher, the Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi referred to the Judgment in Harbhajan Sandhu v. State of Punjab and another, [CRM-M-34495 of 2021] and emphasized the need for a proximate link between alleged harassment and the subsequent suicide to establish abetment charges.

"The post of a Teacher requires disciplining of students. 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 Bench said.

It further added, "The majority of students are unlikely to get affected by the act, conduct or language of a Teacher. However, 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.....In the instant case, as has already been discussed hereinabove, it appears that the deceased 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."

The case pertained to Naresh Kapoor, a school teacher accused of abetting the suicide of a minor student in 2019. The Petitioner argued that there was negligible interaction between him and the deceased preceding the suicide, and there were no allegations of specific instances of acute harassment in either the FIR or the suicide note.

The Court, while hearing the Revision Petition filed by Kapoor, referred to relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and previous judicial decisions to ascertain the parameters for establishing abetment charges. It highlighted that mere allegations of harassment would not suffice to prove abetment, unless there was evidence linking the accused's actions directly to the suicide.

The Bench stressed the significance of examining each case on its own merits and considering the surrounding circumstances that might influence both the accused's actions and the deceased's state of mind.

The Court noted that even if the accusations against the accused were severe, there must be a direct connection between the alleged harassment and the victim's decision to commit suicide. In this particular case, the Court found no concrete evidence indicating that Kapoor's actions directly contributed to the student's suicide.

"..a perusal of the FIR and the suicide note would show 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," the Court said.

The Court noted the absence of specific incidents in the FIR and suicide note implicating Kapoor and highlighted the findings of an independent committee formed by the school, which concluded that Kapoor's behavior did not amount to harassment.

"The independent Three Members Committee constituted by the School also came to the conclusion that the deceased was weak in studies and that the behaviour of the petitioner did not amount to harassment of students in general and deceased in particular," the Court noted.

Based on these observations, the Court concluded that there was no basis for framing charges against Kapoor, and emphasized that while charges could be framed on strong suspicion, there must be substantive evidence to support them. Consequently, the Court set aside the chargesheet and discharged Kapoor from the abetment charges.

"The impugned order dated 16.08.2019 and the charge-sheet dated 16.08.2019 are set aside and the petitioner is discharged of the charges framed against him," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Naresh Kapoor v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate P.S. Ahluwalia

Respondent: Advocates Mohit Saroha (AAG), Anil Kumar Spehia

Click here to read/download the Judgment