Madras High Court
State Rep. By vs Muthuraj on 30 April, 2019
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 31.01.2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKA RAMAN
CRL. A (MD) No.279 / 2009
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Kanniyakumari Circle Police Station
Kaniyakumari District.
(Then Thamarai Kulam P.S.
Crime No.158/2002) ... Appellant/State
Vs.
1.Muthuraj
2.Murugesan
3.Velappan ... Respondents/Accused
1-3
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against
the Judgment dated 08.12.2005 in S.C. No.258/2004 passed by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagercoil to set aside the Judgment of acquittal of the
respondents/accused and convict and sentence the
respondents/accused [A1 to A3] for offences framed against them.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Appellant : Ms. M. Anantha Devi,
Govt. Advocate, (Criminal Side)
For Respondent-1 : Mr. K. Prabhu
For Respondents 2&3 : No Appearance
*******
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State against the order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in S.C. No.258 of 2004 dated 08.12.2005 and to convict and sentence the Respondents/Accused (A1-A3) for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C.
2. The appellant/State has filed Final report against the Accused (A1 to A3)/Respondents herein which are stated in brief hereunder:
(2.1.) FIR has been registered on 03.07.2002 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. in Crime No.158 of 2002 based on the information by P.W.1. that the third son of the P.W.1 had been studying 12th standard in the Government School, Kottaram.
About 10 months prior to the occurrence, his son was asked to take used banana leaves by the respondents/accused from the Playground of the aforesaid School. When he refused to do the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 same, he was beaten up by the respondents/accused. Since then, the accused continued to harass his son. On 24.06.2002, when his son was five minutes late to the school after lunch, he was taken to the outside of the classroom and beaten up by the 3rd accused/3rd respondent herein for which his son refused to go to the school and thereby received transfer certificate from the above said school and joined him at LMS Higher Secondary School at Thenthamaraikulam. Further, the respondents made a call to the latter school and asked not to admit him in the school. Due to which on the occurrence day, his son consumed poison substance at his newly constructed house. He had been taken to the Hospital. However, he died later. After investigation, the appellant-State filed Positive Final Report and the same was taken on file.
3.Initially, the Judicial Magistrate-III, Nagercoil has taken the case on file and the same has been numbered in PRC No.23 of 2004. After observing formalities, the case has been submitted to Session Court numbering the case as S.C. No.258 of 2004 and the same has been made over to Assistant Sessions Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4.Totally three respondents herein were arrayed as A1, A2 and A3 in Crime No.158 of 2002 respectively and charges has been framed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against them.
5.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.21 and marked 15 Documents as Exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and also marked 4 Material Objects as M.O.1 Pesticide, M.O.2- Tumbler, M.O.3 - Accountancy Note and M.O.4 - Knife.
6. On the side of the accused [A1-A3], no witnesses nor any exhibits are marked. Based on the Oral and documentary evidence, the Assistant Session Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil has found that charges under Section 306 of I.P.C. were not proved in the manner known to law. Accordingly, all the accused A1-A3 are acquitted. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant-State herein before this Court.
7.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-State and the learned counsel appearing for the accused A1-A3/respondents herein.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
8. Points for consideration are as follows:
> Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. against the accused A1-A3/respondents herein.
> Whether the order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Session Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil is sustainable in law.
9.After hearing the arguments from both sides and also perusing the documentary evidence adduced before the Trial Court, it is seen that the father of the deceased Sureshwaran was examined as P.W.1 and students who had studied along with the deceased Sureshwaran were examined as P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.10. Aunt of the deceased Sureshwaran was examined as P.W.4. While attestor of the observation magazar, was examined as P.W.5, while P.W.6 and P.W.7 were the principal and Correspondent of the latter school wherein the deceased Sureshwaran had studied. P.W.8 was the Headmaster who had issued attested copy of Transfer Certificate of the old School, i.e. Kottaram Government Higher Secondary School, marked as Ex.P5. P.W.16 to P.W.18 and P.W.20 and P.W.21 are police witnesses deposed with regard to registration of complaint and conduct of the investigations and filing of the http://www.judis.nic.in 6 charge sheet. P.W.19 Judicial Magistrate deposed regarding the statements recorded from all private prosecution witnesses. P.W.2, (Inbararaj) and P.W.10 (Kannan) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and P.W. 18 is the person who had issued the School attendance register of the deceased.
10. It is seen from the oral evidence of the P.W.14 Doctor, Kartheesan who had initially given treatment for detoxing poison substance and P.W.9 Dr. Swarnam, Government Hospital, Kanniyakumari, who had issued Ex.P6 Postmortem Certificate to the effect that son of P.W.1, Natarajan died due to consumption of poison substance. Based upon the above medical evidence, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that Sureshwaran, Son of P.W.1 Natarajan committed suicide by consuming poison substance which is hereby confirmed.
11. Now, the point for consideration arises is that whether all the accused (A1 to A3) are committed cruelty and instigated the Student Sureshwaran to commit suicide.
12. The case of the prosecution in brief are that:
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 12(i) A1 to A3 were working as Teachers in the Kottaram Government Higher Secondary School. The deceased Sureshwaran was studying as a student of 11th Standard. Ten months prior to the death of the deceased, A1/Respondent 1 herein asked the deceased to remove the used plantain leafs from the play ground of the said school. The deceased refused to remove the same. So, A1/Respondent 1 beat the deceased. Thereafter, all the accused (A1-A3) were alleged to have ill-treated the deceased.
12(ii). On 25.6.2002, since the deceased came 10 minutes late after lunch interval, A1/Respondent1 bet the deceased. On 25.06.2002, when the deceased Sureshwaran and his father Natarajan (P.W.1) came to the School, A1 to A3 asked P.W.1 to give in writing that the deceased bet all the accused. So, P.W.1, father of the deceased, obtained Transfer Certificate of the deceased from the said School and went to admit his son in L.M.S. Higher Secondary School at South Thamaraikulam. At that time, A1 to A3 alleged to have contacted the Correspondent of the L.M.S. Higher Secondary School over phone and asked him not to admit the deceased in their school. Since A1 to A3 were going on giving trouble to the deceased, the deceased decided to commit suicide.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 On 03.07.2002 at 1 P.M, the deceased consumed pesticide in the newly constructed house of P.W.1 and he died at 5.45 P.M in Sivanthi Hospital, Kanyakumari.
13. The Accused A1 to A3 are working in the Kottaram Government Higher Secondary School. The deceased Sureshwaran along with P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.10 were students studying +1 in the said school. While P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, P.W.4 is the aunt of the deceased. The above relationship and the above facts are not in dispute. So also after passing +1, the deceased Sureshwaran along with P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.10 was promoted to +2. At the time of their studying in +2 in the said school, all the accused A1 to A3 were employed at their School which is also not in dispute.
14. It is also admitted that on 27.06.2002, the deceased Sureshwaran has received Transfer Certificate from Kottaram Government Higher Secondary School and moved over to L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, at South Thamaraikulam and joined +2 there on 28.06.2002. On 29.06.2002 and 30.06.2002 were weekly holidays. As per Ex.P.13 Attendance Sheet marked through P.W.18, the deceased Sureshwaran attended the latter school i.e. L.M.S. http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Higher Secondary School, at South Thamaraikulam, on 01.07.2002 and 02.07.2002 and absented on 03.07.2002.
15. As stated supra, from the medical evidence, the said P.W.14 and P.W.15 coupled with the Ex.P6 Postmortem Certificate, the Session Court held that Sureshwaran, son of P.W.1 has committed suicide by consuming poison substance and died on 03.07.2002.
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the deceased Sureshwaran, son of the P.W.1, had initially studied in the Kottaram Government Higher Secondary School wherein accused (A1 to A3) were employed as School Teachers as well as A1 was working as Zoology Teacher in the said School.
17. P.W.19, Judicial Magistrate who had recorded statement of the P.W.2, Inbaraj and P.W.10 Kannan under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the same has been marked as Ex.P.7. On combined reading of the Oral evidence of the P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4 coupled with their statement recorded under Section 164 in Ex.P7, it is seen that the first respondent/first accused asked deceased to remove the used plantain leaf from the play ground of http://www.judis.nic.in 10 the said school. When the deceased Sureshwaran refused to remove the same, on alleging that he has brought the food in the Tiffen Box.
18. It appears that as the student Sureshwaran was not happy with the School in which he was studying because of the attitude of the Accused teachers (A1 -A3)/Respondents herein. Hence he has informed to his father P.W.1 to get Transfer Certificate from the said School and his father went to admit the deceased in the L.M.S. Higher Secondary School.
19. P.W.14, Dr.Kartheesan had issued IP Chart marked as Ex.P8, while Accident Register, the Death Certificate marked as Ex.P9 and P.W.9, Dr. Swarnam, working in Government Hospital, Kanniyakumari, had issued Postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P. 6, wherein it is seen that age of the Boy is 18 years and hence the Trial Court has appeared to have framed charge under Section 306 of I.P.C.
19 (a) The crux of the issue is centered around the stage of the admission and alleged events after admitting the said student in the new school namely L.M.S. Higher Secondary School at South Thamaraikulam.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11 19 (b) Mr. Helen Pepsi Bai, the Principal of the New School was examined as P.W.6. Mr. Lovaiah, the Correspondent of the New School was examined as P.W.7.
19 (c). It is a specific case of the prosecution that at the time of admission, the correspondent of the new school has alleged to have told parent that they have received phone calls from the previous school about his son's bad characters and also stated that the old school has asked them not to give admission. However, P.W.6, the Headmaster of the new school, have deposed that at the recommendation of P.W.11, (the President, Panchayat Board), in the presence of the Councilor (P.W.12), the said student was granted admission and not whispered anything against these accused, assumes significance.
20. In this regard, Panchayat Board, President and Councilor of the ward, were examined as P.W.11 and P.W.12 respectively. P.W.11 Panchayat Board, President, has stated that at the time of admission, the correspondent of the School had stated that he had received a phone calls from the Old School stating that student Sureshwaran is Rowdy boy and not to give admission to him http://www.judis.nic.in 12 but, he has not whispered that the accused have conveyed to the Correspondent the above contents. So also, P.W.12 in the evidence stated that the correspondent of the School has only stated that are you a big Rowdy, so, there is no seat for you. However, neither P.W.11 nor P.W.12 have whispered anything to show that the accused have contacted the correspondent of the School over phone and they spoke ill about the boy's conduct and further they have also not whispered anything as to compelling him to refuse to give admission to boy assumes significance.
21. Thus, from the answer elicited in the Cross examination of P.W.11 and P.W.12, it is seen that P.W.11 and P.W. 12 could dispose that the correspondent has stated that he has received the phone calls from the old school. At this juncture, the evidence of the P.W.7, correspondent who is a material witness assumes significance, who, in the chief cross examination have stated about the giving admission to the students, but he has not whispered anything against accused as projected by the prosecution. Accordingly, he was treated as hostile.
22. So also Headmaster of new School P.W.11 has never whispered anything against the accused and nor dispelled against http://www.judis.nic.in 13 accused as projected by the P.W.11 and P.W.12 and it appears that based upon independent witnesses P.W.11 and P.W.12 who has never whispered anything against the accused as said that they are causing hindrance of the admission of the new School and furthermore, the material witnesses P.W.6 and P.W.7 having turned hostile and hence it shows that evidence of the P.W.1 regarding A1 to A3 allegedly contacting the Correspondent of later School Viz. L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, South Thamaraikulam, and his further evidence that the accused have asked him not to admit the deceased in the said school cannot be believed.
23. Furthermore, there is no positive evidence to show that accused A1 to A3 contacted L.M.S. Higher Secondary School's authorities and requested them not to admit the deceased in the said School as discussed in the preceding paragraph.
24. Having recording the versions of the P.W.11 and P.W. 12, this Court is of the considered view that there is no positive evidence to show that all the accused has found to have spoken with authorities of the L.M.S. Higher Secondary School against the deceased. In absence of any positive evidence from the material witness, P.W.6, P.W.7, and as nothing is whispered by independent http://www.judis.nic.in 14 witness, P.W.11, P.W.12 against all the accused, this Court finds that, there is no incriminating circumstance available on record in support of first limb of prosecution theory as against all the accused and hence the similar finding arrived by the Session Court is well considered and well merited and the same does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the said finding of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed.
25. The next limb prosecution theory is that after admission in the new school L.M.S. Higher Secondary School, accused 1 to 3 have alleged to have continuously tortured the student that has let him to commit suicide.
26. In this regard, Ms.M.Anandha Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) drawn my attention to the version of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4. Even as per the version of P.W.1, (the father of the deceased), admission in the new school was completed on 28.06.2002. Thereafter, on 29.06.2002 and 30.06.2002 were weekly holidays. As per Ex.P.13-Attendance sheet, the deceased attended the later school on 01.07.2002 and 02.07.2002 and absented himself on 03.07.2002 and died on 03.07.2002 in the evening.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15
27. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that all the accused alleged to have contacted the Head Master of the new school and asked them not to give admission and the same was conveyed by his son and from the deceased son P.W.1 and P.W.4 are said to have came to know about the act alleged against the accused. In this regard, as discussed supra, both material witnesses namely, P.W.6 and P.W.7, Headmaster and correspondent of the new school are turned hostile. Thus, whether all these accused have conveyed to P.W.6 and P.W.7 as alleged by P.W.1 and P.W.2 were not proved in the manner known to law for want of evidence. Admittedly, the deceased was given admission in the new school and also attended for two days. As per the evidence of P.W.2, who is a student studied along with the deceased, he in his chief examination has stated that the deceased has conveyed on 02.07.2002 at about 4.30 P.M. about the displeasure expressed by the deceased to the alleged act of the accused conveying a wrong opinion about the conduct of the student. However, he in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that the deceased has not disclosed its source of opinion as to from whom he has received the information. Taking into consideration the answer elicited in the cross examination and in the absence of any corroboration from material http://www.judis.nic.in 16 witnesses viz., P.W.6 and P.W.7 as to the material factum of alleged act of conveying a wrong opinion about the conduct of the student or alleged further theory prosecution, the trial Court has discarded the evidence of P.W.2 as that of hearsay and the said finding given by the Trial Court is well considered and well merited and it does not warrant any interference by this Court at this appellate stage.
28.P.W.6 the Headmaster of the New School has not deposed anything against the accused and she had stated that at the time of the admission, P.W11 and P.W12 have accompanied with the student Sureshwaran and her further evidence is that P.W. 7, the correspondent of the School was not present at that time of admission admission. Except that, she has not dispelled anything, as alleged by P.W.1 and P.W.4, against these accused also assumes significance.
29. It remains to be stated that P.W.6 Headmaster, has turned hostile before the Court and therefore this Court is of the considered view that as a material witness as to the alleged factum of conveying opinion about the conduct of the student and recommendation not to give admission to the student is not proved and second limb of prosecution theory as correctly held by the http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Session has not proved in the manner known to law does not warrant interference.
30. In view of the above observed position and that in the absence of any positive evidence from the material witnesses P.W.6 and P.W.7 and as nothing was whispered by the independent witnesses P.Ws.11 and 12 against all the accused, this Court is of the considered view that there is no incriminating circumstances available on record in support of the charge under Section 306 IPC against the accused (A1 to A3) and hence, as stated supra, similar finding arrived by the Sessions Judge in this regard is hereby confirmed.
31. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal [2010 (1) SCC 707] the Supreme Court has held that:
"In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must beproved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
http://www.judis.nic.in 18 The principle laid down in the said judgment applies in all fours to the facts of this case.”
32. Hence, following the ratio in the above cited referred cases, the act of the accused herein viz., A.1 to A.3 as spoken to by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.10 does not exceed the limit of disciplining the student within the school campus and conducting of re- examination or retesting the students performed poor in examination and any such incident or words spoken to or uttered by the teacher on the poor performance students cannot amount to instigation or incited for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
33. Before parting, it is relevant to extract the relevant portions of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24858 of 2006 dated 28.07.2009, which read as follows:-
"2. ..... Anganvadi Teacher reported to the Teachers that some one had taken a sum of Rs.1200/- from her bag, which was kept in the Balvadi Class and suspected that some of the students of the IX Standard A of the School, who visited the Anganvadi, might have stolen the money. Accordingly, the Petitioners called for those students and their bags were searched. A few minutes thereafter, a student by name Udaya alias Saranya, the deceased herein gave Rs.100/- to the Petitioners, claiming that the said amount was found in the bag of one Kavitha, a co- student. Thereafter, Udaya @ Saranya and six other students were taken to the male staff room and they were enquired by the lady teachers. At that time, Udaya @ Saranya took Rs.600/- from her Churidhar pocket and http://www.judis.nic.in 19 handed over the same to the Petitioners. Another amount of Rs.500/- was also handed over by Udaya @ Saranya to one Jayanthi, PET Teacher. Arumugam, the father of the Udaya @ Saranya was sent for and he was appraised of the incident happened in the School. It is stated that Arumugam gave an undertaking letter, stating that he would warn his daughter and such things would not happen again in future and left the School.
3 to 11. ......
12. ...... the stolen money had been recovered from the deceased girl and she was reprimanded by the Teachers more particularly the Petitioners herein for stealing the money. .....
13. ..... words is said to have been uttered to the deceased by the Petitioners, when they had come to know that the deceased had stolen the money from the bag of the Anganvadi Teacher and money was also recovered from her. Thirdly, the deceased had her lunch in the School and attended the post lunch session classes and left the School only after it was over and she had committed suicide only after reaching the home. ...
14. .....
15. One important thing to be noted in this case is that the Petitioners being the Teachers of the Government School in the interest of the Institution correct any mistake done by the student in order to cultivate good habits and get rid of bad habits, such as stealing money. In fact, the father of the deceased girl had been summoned and it is stated that he gave a letter of apology for the conduct of his daughter and also undertook that the same would not recur again. In such view of the matter, the act of the petitioners cannot be said that it would amount to abetment of suicide.
16 to 18. .....
19. ..... it is clear that the stolen money had been recovered only from the deceased and that the Petitioners being the teachers of her School had scolded her for stealing the money."
http://www.judis.nic.in 20 In the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.22507 of 2006 dated 16.05.2007, the facts of the case being read as follows:-
"2. This is a very unfortunate case, wherein a student of II Year B.Tech. Course, Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry has taken an extreme decision to put an end to his life by committing suicide by hanging, as he has obtained less marks in Mathematics than his expectation, as a result of which, the petitioner, who is the lecturer in Mathematics, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, has been implicated in this case for the alleged offence under Section 306 I.P.C., on the allegation that because of his negligent and careless correction of papers, awarded 20 marks in the place of 54 and 61 marks, given after revaluation by other lecturers and as such, he has abetted the victim student to commit suicide. There should be an active role played by the accused, which can be described as instigating or aiding to commit the suicide. In the instant case, there is absolutely no material available on record to show that the petitioner played active role, which can be described as instigating or aiding the victim to commit the suicide.
There is absolutely no two opinion that the teaching staff should be more responsible and careful in correcting the answer papers of the students. But, at the same time, (the younger generation viz., the students cannot resort to take the extreme step of putting an end to their life merely on the ground of getting lesser marks in the examination. It is always open to them to ask for re-valuation.) Even in this case, after re-valuation, the victim secured more marks."
34. In the decision reported in 2006 (Crl.L.J. 1762 [Sashi Prabha Devi Vs. State of Assam], the Gauhati High Court http://www.judis.nic.in 21 has held as follows:-
"the allegation is that the accused, a Head Mistress of a School wrongly struck off the name of the deceased from the Register of the Students in Class X, which induced the deceased to commit suicide and the High Court of Gujarat has held that there was no evidence showing that the accused had acted at any point of time, suggested or hinted for commission of suicide and (when the accused was entitled to correct any wrong order, as in fact deceased) had not passed her class IX examination, no case of instigation or abetment of suicide was made out against the accused."
35. In the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 11464 of 2017 dated 04.03.2019, the facts of the case are as follows:-
"Petitioner/first accused, warden of college charged under Section 306 Code 1860 on the ground that during study hours, deceased was using cell phone which was seized by the petitioner and thereafter, second accused and the petitioner both conducted enquiry and thereby instigated or abeted the deceased to commit suicide, hence this petition. (The petitioner being monitor of students, had taken mobile phone only in interest of student and the act of the petitioner would not amount to abetment of suicide.")
36. Accordingly, it is stated that the abetment involves mental process of instigation, instigating person or intentionally aiding person on doing of thing without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, charge could not be sustained and no clear mens rea to commit suicide. It is also http://www.judis.nic.in 22 required active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such position that she committed suicide.
37. As discussed supra, in the catena of citation above, it is seen that, when teachers, in the interest of the institution, school/college, to correct any mistake done by the students in order to cultivate good habits and get rid of bad habits, such as stealing money, the accused being teachers on their school have scolded for stealing money and such act of the accused/teachers cannot be said to amount to abetment of suicide. In another case, it seems that the student has taken extreme decision to put an end to his life by committing suicide by hanging, as he has obtained less marks in Mathematics which resulted in, the concerned Lecturer was arrayed as an accused. In yet another case, it is noted that the teacher being monitor of students had taken mobile phone only in the interest of student which he has used during the study hours and such act of the teacher could not amount to abetment of suicide. It is to be stated that the teachers were entitled to correct the wrong order. The younger generation viz., the students cannot resort to take the extreme step of putting an end to their life merely on the http://www.judis.nic.in 23 ground of getting lessor marks in the examination. It is always open to them to ask for revaluation as the case applicable and hence, this Court finds that the act of the accused does not exceed the limit of disciplining the student withing the school campus and conducting of re-examination or re-testing for the students, who performed poor in the examination and any such incident or words spoken to or uttered by the teachers of the student cannot amount to instigation or incitation for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
38. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The Judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, in S.C. No.258 of 2005 dated 08.12.2005 is hereby confirmed.
39. Before parting, in view of the incidence narrated above, this Court is of the considered view that during the adolescent age between 15 and 17 while studying +2 and age of 17 to 19 during the initial age of college studies, it appears that the present educational system gives enormous pressure upon the students to do well in the examination and in the process, as a corollary event, majority act of discipline by the teachers causes http://www.judis.nic.in 24 mental imbalance to the adolescent agehood and hence, it is right time that the State Government has to evaluate/formulate a scheme to envisage for physiological evaluation of all students, who are studying in +1 and +2 and first two years of college as well and to take necessary steps to give psychological counselling to meet the pressure of higher studies in crucial age.
40. Hence, the Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Higher Secondary Education and Collegiate Education so as to formulate a scheme for physiological evaluation of students in the age group of 16 to 19 and in the appropriate cases, monitor steps to be taken to weed out the self destructive/dysregulated behavior of pupil.
30.04.2019
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
lbm
http://www.judis.nic.in
25
To
The Assistant Sessions Judge cum
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagercoil.
http://www.judis.nic.in
26
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
lbm
CRL. A (MD) No.279 / 2009
http://www.judis.nic.in
27
30.04.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in