Balaarasu vs The State By Inspector Of Police on 21 July, 2017

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Balaarasu vs The State By Inspector Of Police on 21 July, 2017

2. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.85 of 2016 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Erode, ordering the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo further period of 2 years Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 IPC and further directed the said fine amount shall be paid to P.W.2/mother of the victim.

3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are as follows :-

[i]. Manivannan-P.W.1 and Lakshmi-P.W.2 are the father and mother respectively of the deceased Shanthini. The deceased was a second year student in E.I.T. Polytechnic College at Gownthapadi. Murugesh-P.W.3 and Balusamy-P.W.4 were in the same class at the College. The appellant / Balaarasu was working as a Teacher in the said College.

[ii] On 07.03.2011, at about 11.00 a.m., when the appellant was giving lecture in the class, he found the deceased / Shantini chatting with another student sitting by her side. As the deceased was not listening attentively, the accused scolded her, slapped her, threw her bag and set her out of the class. The deceased, returned home in the evening and informed her mother-P.W.2 about the incident. P.W.2 consoled the deceased. She went out to purchase grocery and returned at about 6.30p.m. she found the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan, using her dupatta at her house. Mohanasundaram-P.W.6, neighbour of P.W.2 also saw the dead body of the deceased / Shantini.

[iii] P.W.1 along with his brother Thirugnanam-P.W.5 went to the Erode North Police Station and lodged complaint [Ex.P.1]. On receipt of Ex.P.1, the then Sub Inspector of Police-P.W.9, registered a case in Crime No.370 of 2011 under 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.6 is the First Information Report. He visited the scene of occurrence on 08.03.2011. He prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.R.1) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.7) in the presence of witness Muthuraman-P.W.7. He seized the Dupatta (M.O.1) and the suicide note (Ex.P.2) from the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer caused photographs (Ex.P.5) of the body of the deceased, to be taken with the help of Selvam-P.W.8 in four dimensions.

[iv] The Investigating Officer held inquest over the body of the deceased at 6.15 a.m. on 08.03.2011. Ex.P.8 is the Inquest Report. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and on the basis of the materials collected by him, altered the case into one under Section 306 IPC and sent a report to Ex.P.10. to the Court. He sent the dead body for post mortem through Thygarajan-P.W.10, Constable attached to the Erode North Police Station.

[v] Dr.K.Tamilselvi-P.W.11, Doctor, attached to Erode Government Hospital, conducted Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 08.03.2011 at 9.15 a.m. She found the following injuries:

Ligature mark seen in the anterior aspect of neck. 10cm below the chin, 10cm below the angle of mandible on the right side and 5cm below the angle of mandible on the left side, and not seen on the lack of neck. Reddish brown in colour. On further dissection, the base is pale, hard and parchment like and the same preserved. Hyoid preserved. No other external injuries seen. [vi] Ex.P.11 is the Post Mortem Certificate. P.W.11 opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to hanging. She found ligature mark seen in the anterior aspect of neck. Ex.P.12 is the final opinion.

[vii] Sethupathy-P.W.12, the then Inspector, Erode North Police Station, took up the investigation from P.W.9. and arrested the accused on 08.03.2011 at about 12.30 p.m. in the presence of witnesses and interrogated him. His successor Sivakumar-P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, took up the further investigation and after completion of the investigation, laid the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence the appellant denied the same. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The accused did not produce any defense witness on his behalf.

4. The Trial Court has accepted the case of the prosecution and come to convict and sentence the accused / appellant as aforesaid.

5. Assailing the said conviction, the appellant moved this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Trial Court has ignored the significant fact that the teacher is bound to correct the deviant behaviour of the student and that, the Trial Court ought to have held that the appellant has not instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He has also pointed out that the accused has no mens rea and it cannot be said that he aided or instigated the suicide of the deceased.

7. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] supported the judgment of the Trial Court. According to him, there are enough materials to convict the appellant.

8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are just and proper.

9. It is not in dispute that the accused was employed as a Teacher in E.I.T. Polytechnic College at Gownthapadi. The deceased was a second year in the said college during the relevant period. The deceased, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were in the same class at the said College. It is seen from the evidence of the students [P.W.3 and P.W.4] that, on 07.03.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. while the accused was giving lecture in the class, the deceased was engaged in a conversion with the student sitting by her side. It is the evidence of P.W.2 / mother that the deceased returned home in the evening depressed and informed her [P.W.2] about the incident that had happened in the class. It is also her evidence that she consoled the deceased and fed her. P.W.2 went out of house and returned at about 6.30p.m., she found the deceased hanging herself from the ceiling fan, using Dupatta. The medical evidence given by the Doctor-P.W.11, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased / Shantini and issued the post mortem certificate reveals that Shantini committed suicide.

10. It is to be seen whether the appellant has been responsible in driving Shantini to take the extreme step. The evidence of the students [P.W.3 and P.W.4] would show that the appellant admonished the deceased, as she was not paying attention while he was giving lecture in the class. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SANJU ALIAS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR vs. STATE OF M.P. [2002 SCC (CRI) 1141] has observed that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is also held that the presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation to prove the abetment of suicide.

11. The proximate cause for the suicide is not very much the conduct of the accused in admonishing the deceased but also throwing her college bag and sending her out of class room. It is more on account of the hyper sensitivity of the deceased. Ex.P.2 is the suicide note left by the deceased. A close reading of Ex.P.2 would make it abundantly clear that what drove the deceased to commit suicide was that the accused/teacher would be regretful and repent every time he comes across the deceased. In her own language, the circumstances leading to her decision to end her life are expressed vividly thus:

md;g[s;s mg;gh/ mg;gh eP';f v';f \q nghiua[k; ey;yh gof;f tr;rP';f ehd; vdf;F c';f Mir epiwntw ehd; gof;fDk; jhd; Mir. Mdh ,d;idf;F v';f rhh; rhjhuz tp#aj;Jf;F mj;jid ngh; Kd;dhy; vd;d if ePl;o mor;R mrp';fg;gLj;jPl;lhU. Mdh ehd; mJf;fhf kl;Lk; ,y;yhk Vd; ,e;j Kot[f;F te;njdh ,d;idf;F vd;id mor;rJf;F mg;g[wk; vd;id ghf;Fk; nghbjy;yhk; mtU kdR ntjidg;gl;lJ ghh;j;njd;. ,dp vd;id ghh;f;fw xt;bthU jlita[k; mtU kdR behe;J fpl;nl ,Ug;ghU. Mjdhy; jhd; ehd; ,g;go bra;anwd;.

Vd; rht[f;F ahUk; fhuzk; my;y.

vd;Wk; c';fs; md;g[ kfs;

M.Santhini 7.03.11

12. The concluding line in Ex.P.2 has in my view, a lot of significance in as much as the deceased has not chosen to fasten liability on any one, not to speak of the accused. It is to be borne in mind, the reaction to such a happening would vary from student to student. Thus, it is apparent that the accused could not be responsible for the unfortunate development resulting in the suicide of the deceased. The deceased had expressed as detailed above, her concern for the feelings and the sentiments of her teacher/accused, as and when the latter sees her / deceased. In my considered view, if the entirety of the material in Ex.P.2 is taken into consideration, it would not have effect of connecting the accused directly or indirectly with the commission of the suicide by the deceased.

13. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 would make it clear that the deceased was engaged in uncalled for conversion with the student sitting by her side while the class was in process and that necessitated the accused to express his displeasure in the manner he has done. It was incumbent on the part of the teacher to maintain discipline in the class and for achieving this end, he could resort to reasonable methods of control. Ofcourse, such control is not expected to exceed reasonable limits. The accused would not have expected such a reaction and result for reprimanding the student in the class room in the manner detailed in Ex.P.2.

14. Having considered the entire materials on record both oral and documentary, I hold that the conduct of the accused would not amount to instigation to commit suicide. In my view, the Trial Court did not appear to have appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in the proper light and the approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the by the District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Erode in S.C.No. 85 of 2016, dated 21.09.2016, are set aside and the appellant is found not guilty of the charge levelled against him, acquitted thereof and set at liberty. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant, shall stand discharged.

21.07.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes sri To

1.The District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Erode.

2.The Inspector of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, North Police Station Erode, Erode.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

N.AUTHINATHAN, J., sri Criminal Appeal No.719 of 2016 21.07.2017

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court