It has to be said before stating anything else that the Supreme Court has in a most recent, remarkable, robust and rational judgment titled VP Singh Etc vs The State of Punjab & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.2103, 2104 & 2105 /2010 that was pronounced as recently as on November 24, 2022 has held explicitly, elegantly and eloquently that the criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment. This was held so while disposing a criminal appeal which was filed 13 years ago. The Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka observed so after it noted that an appeal arising out of framing of charges remained pending in the Supreme Court for 13 years.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul for a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka sets the ball in motion by first and foremost itself most significantly putting forth in the opening para that, “The criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment! It is exactly what has happened in this case. 14 years on an issue of abetment of suicide in an episode where a student was reprimanded for misconduct in the College and on endeavor to take disciplinary action and call the father, though the parent did not turn up and subsequently the child committed suicide. An unfortunate situation! However, we are concerned with the issue whether there is any element of an abetment to suicide in the present case which was at the threshold of charges having been framed.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in the next para that, “On 16.4.2008, the deceased viz. Mr. Gaurav Wahi was attending the last lecture under Mr. Nitin Shyam, one of the accused, and is alleged to have misbehaved with him in the class under the influence of alcohol. When Mr. Shyam asked Mr. Gaurav to leave the class, he ran out of the class. This incident was reported by Mr. Nitin Shyam to Mr. Sarabjit Singh, the acting Head of the Department. The incident was reported in writing by Mr. Nitin Shyam on the next date i.e. 17.4.2008 to the then Head of the Department. An order was passed suspending the deceased from the class and calling upon him to call his parents as an exercise of legitimate disciplinary action.”
While elaborating further, the Bench then states in the next para that, “To redeem himself, Mr. Gaurav Wahi, the deceased wrote a letter of apology to the Head of the Department on 21.4.2008 in a way accepting the incident but denying that he was under the influence of alcohol. On 23.4.2008, the Principal, Mr. V. P. Singh issued a notice whereby he directed action against two students including the deceased in separate incidents calling for a security amount of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the College as security deposit as a disciplinary exercise and to bring the parents to the office. This deposit was to be refunded at the end of completion of course.”
As it turned out, the Bench then discloses in the next para of this notable judgment that, “Unfortunately the deceased, instead of complying with the disciplinary action, chose to take his own life by jumping in the canal. Before doing so, he sent an SMS to his brother viz. Mr. Himmat Wahi. The purport of the message when translated into English and even read in the original language, was an intimation that he was jumping into the deep side of the river. He stated that amongst all, he loved his mother the most and wanted his father not to be troubled. The obvious purport of this is that while he was closest to his mother, he sought to anticipate that his father may be blamed for the episode and that the father should not be troubled by it.”
Furthermore, the Bench then states in the next para of this learned judgment that, “On the complaint of the father, an FIR No.62 of 2008 was registered at P.S. Sardar Rupnagar District, Punjab on 29.4.2008 under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the complaint that the said suicide was instigated by the three accused i.e. the teacher, the Head of the Department and the Principal.”
Interestingly enough, the Bench then notes that, “It is interesting to note that on the bail application on 06.8.2008, one of the factors which weighed with the High Court while granting bail was that the conduct could not be construed to make the accused liable for offence under Section 306 of IPC as it was to ensure discipline in the class and the campus and even if the teachers are stated to be acting harshly, it could not be said that they wanted to incite, urge or provoke the deceased to commit suicide.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then reveals in the next para that, “On investigation the charge sheet was filed on 13.9.2008 and charges were framed on 16.4.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, three accused preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 30.4.2009 with a cryptic order only stating that the proceedings were at an early stage and did not call for any interference.”
As we see, the Bench then observes that, “The present appeals were preferred assailing that order and interim stay was granted at the threshold. The trial of course naturally did not proceed in view of the stay by this Court. The matter has rested at that for the last thirteen years!”
Needless to say, the Bench then states that, “In the present appeal proceedings, the appellants were called upon to file the complete records of the trial Court proceedings vide order dated 26.9.2019 which has been accordingly filed.”
Be it noted, the Bench then after hearing the learned counsel for parties and examining the record as stated then describes in the next para stating that, “If we turn to the complaint, the charge sheet is simply an incorporation of what the complainant has said. It is the say of the father, complainant (who was certainly not present to witness what happened) that some students were causing the noise and it was not the son/deceased. The son stated that he was not at fault but he was shouted at by Mr. Nitin Shyam to go out of the classroom. The deceased did so and closed the door. It is alleged that thereafter Mr. Nitin Shyam ran after the son and caught hold of him by the arm and dragged him towards the office of the Head of the Department. On the next day i.e. 17.4.2008, when the deceased went to college, he found the notice to him pasted on their notice board recording that he had been suspended and calling upon his parents, failing which, he will not be permitted to appear in the examination. He was not permitted to enter the classroom on 17.4.2008 and even on making a grievance to the Head of the Department, he did not succeed as he was threatened to spoil his career but on meeting Mr. Nitin Shyam, he was turned away and also stated that if he were to die, it would not bother him. Since nothing happened for the next few days despite the best endeavour of the deceased, he committed suicide.”
Do note, the Bench then points out that, “On perusal of the charge sheet, it was found that there is no other independent witness whose statement was recorded or who is cited as a witness to the actual incident. In view of the letter exchanged including his apology letter, it is quite obvious that the complaint has embellishments and endeavour to make out a case of abetment of suicide. If one may say, on even reading of the charge sheet, on the basis of the complaint as it is, there is still no case made out for abetment of suicide.”
Briefly stated, the Bench then observes that, “Learned senior counsel for the appellants has relied inter alia on the judgment of this Court in “S. S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr.” reported as (2010) 12 SCC 190 more specifically paragraph 24 & 25. The Court examined the matter in the conspectus of the prevalent legal position in the Country. While suicide by itself is not an offence but an attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 of IPC. The Court thereafter turned to the definition of abetment under Section 107 of IPC.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes that, “To examine the factual matrix in the present case, in view of the aforesaid legal position, we find not an iota of material on record even assuming the complete charge sheet to be correct which could lead to a conviction in a case of abetment as there was absence of the necessary ingredients to make the offence. While we appreciate the anguish of a father who has lost a young son, that cannot result in blaming the world (in the present case, the institution and its teachers) for what is a basic disciplinary action necessary for running the institute. A contra position would create a lawless and unmanageable situation in an educational institution. The suicide note further shows that there is something to be said about the relationship between the deceased and his father where in fact the deceased thought that his father could be blamed for the episode and thus asked to not to trouble his father. The anguish of the father ought not to have been converted into a case of abetment of suicide and certainly the investigation and the approach of the trial Court could have been more realistic keeping in mind the surrounding facts and circumstances in which the suicide episode occurred.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in the next para that, “We thus set aside the order framing charges dated 16.4.2009 and impugned order of the High Court sustaining the same and discharge the accused in respect of FIR No.62 of 2008.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in the final para that, “The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs.”
To conclude, the Apex Court has made it indubitably clear that criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that the criminal justice system does not become a punishment itself. It merits no reiteration that the trial courts must definitely always pay heed to what has been held so clearly that the approach of the trial Court could have been more realistic keeping in mind the surrounding facts and circumstances in which the suicide episode occurred. No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi