Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Goyal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 March, 2023
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved On: 24.02.2023 Delivered On: 20.03.2023 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3589 of 2022 Revisionist :- Dharmendra Goyal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Afzal, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Vimal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Pradeep Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 16.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (1st), Court No.16 Gautam Buddha Nagar in Special Trial No. 559 of 2018 (State vs. Dharmendra and others), Crime No. 202 of 2018, under Sections 306, 354, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Sector-24 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, whereby the application of revisionist-accused for discharge has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the revisionist has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide and thus, no case under Section 306 IPC is made out against the revisionist. The revisionist was working as Principal of the Alckon Public School, Mayur Vihar Phase-3, Delhi and the allegation regarding misbehaviour with deceased girl, were levelled against co-accused Rajiv Sahgal and Niraj Anand, who were working as teacher in the said school. The mere allegation against the revisionist is that when the informant made a complaint against the said teachers to the revisionist, he has threatened him to cut off the name of deceased from the school. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are not made out against the revisionist. The trial Court did not consider the grounds taken in the discharge application and that the said application was rejected in an arbitrary manner and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the case of Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajashtan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021) decided by the Supreme Court on 05.10.2021.
4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the revision and argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The trial Court has considered the entire facts and rejected the discharge application of revisionist by a reasoned order. It was submitted that the criminal revision filed by co-accused Niraj Anand against the rejection of her discharge application, has already been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2023, passed in Criminal Revision No. 3443 of 2022. It was submitted that the allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, discloses a prima facie case against the revisionist. At this stage matter cannot be examined meticulously and only it is to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
5. I have considered rival submissions and perused record.
6. In case of Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajashtan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2021), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased."
In paragraph nos. 27, 28 and 30 of the aforesaid judgment it was held as under:
"27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being upto the mark in studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school. The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, in our considered opinion, would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason. A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student.
28. ''Spare the rod and spoil the child' an old saying may have lost its relevance in present days and Corporal punishment to the child is not recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school authorities have to shut their eyes to any indiscipline act of a student. It is not only a moral duty of a teacher but one of the legally assigned duty under Section 24 (e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to hold regular meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise them about the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other act or relevant information about the child.
30. If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an act of indiscipline and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice of Principal of the institution who conveyed to the parents of the student for the purposes of school discipline and correcting a child, any student who is very emotional or sentimental commits suicide, can the said teacher be held liable for the same and charged and tried for the offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC."
7. It It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge application, the court is not to analyse reliability of the material on record. The evidentiary value and its credibility has to be considered at the stage of trial. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the material brought on record by prosecution is true and such material and documents have to be considered with a view to find out whether the facts emerging from such material when taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.
8. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 39], considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, it was held that at the stage of framing of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
9. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors [(1980) 1 SCR 323], the Apex Court held that the Magistrate at the stage of framing charges had to see whether the facts alleged and sought to be proved by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of offence on general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer.
10. In State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Others [(2000) 8 SCC 239], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons.
11. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and Others [(1997) 4 SCC 393] it was held that at Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. stage the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
12. It is apparent from the above discussed decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court that at the stage of charge there can only be limited evaluation of materials and documents on record. At the stage of charge or consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the material brought on record by prosecution is true and such material and documents have to be considered with a view to find out whether the facts emerging from such material when taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.
13. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the opposite party No.2/informant has lodged first information report of this case against the revisionist and co-accused Rajiv Sahgal and Niraj Anand, alleging that his daughter was student of class 9th in Alckon Public School, Mayur Vihar Phase-3, Delhi and she used to remain upset and that later on she told him that her two teachers, namely, Rajiv Sahgal and Niraj Anand were harassing her and they used to touch her inappropriately. The informant met the Principal (revisionist herein) and made a complaint against the said teachers but the revisionist threatened to remove the name of his daughter from the school. It was alleged that after that the said two teachers increased the harassment of the daughter of informant and they have failed her in their respective subjects. The informant again met the Principal but he has again threatened him. It was further alleged on that very day the informant saw that the alleged two teachers were laughing at him. It was alleged that on 20.03.2018 the daughter of informant told him on phone that she has prepared her course well but the said teachers would again fail her and that when the informant reached at his home, he found that his daughter has committed suicide.
14. Thus, it is apparent from perusal of record that only allegation against the revisionist is that when the informant has met him and made complaint against the conduct of alleged two teachers, namely, Rajeev Sahgal and Niraj Anand, the revisionist/Principal has threatened to cut off (remove) the name of his daughter from the school. There is no such allegation that the revisionist/accused did any physical overt act against the deceased girl. The allegations of touching the victim girl inappropriately were against the said two teachers. There is also no such allegation that in that connection the deceased girl has ever met the revisionist. It appears that the trial Court did not consider the matter in correct perspective and the discharge application of revisionist was rejected by merely observing that after collecting sufficient evidence, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused/revisionist. It appears that neither the grounds taken in discharge application were considered by the trial Court nor it was considered whether the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are satisfied so as to make out a prima facie case under Section 306 IPC against the revisionist. It is apparent from above stated facts that case of applicant is on different from from that of said co-accused Rajiv Sahgal and Niraj Anand. It is correct that at the stage of charge or considering the application of discharge, only it is to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not and that roving inquiry is not required to be made but nevertheless the Court is required to evaluate entire material and documents on record with a limited view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offence and that for this limited purpose, the Court may sift the evidence, as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all the prosecution version as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Thus, it is apparent that the trial Court did not consider the matter in correct perspective and in accordance with law and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
15. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court concerned to reconsider and decide the discharge application of revisionist afresh in accordance with law.
16. The revision is allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 20.03.2023 A. Tripathi