No Mens Rea In Mere Scolding | Supreme Court Discharges School Correspondent Accused Under Section 306 For Student’s Suicide
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the appeal challenging the framing of charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, discharging the appellant from criminal proceedings. The Court set aside the impugned High Court order and quashed the charges against the appellant, holding that the appellant's conduct did not demonstrate any criminal intent to abet suicide. The Court observed that under the admitted factual circumstances, there was no ground to establish mens rea.
The case arose from an incident in a school managed by the appellant, who was acting as the correspondent and thus held responsibility for its operations, including its hostel. An FIR (No.01/2014) had been registered by the CBCID, invoking Sections 306 of the IPC and 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core allegation revolved around the appellant scolding a student who later died by suicide.
According to the submissions of the appellant, the incident occurred following a complaint made by another student against the deceased. The appellant, in his capacity as a correspondent, reprimanded the deceased to maintain discipline and ensure tranquillity in the hostel environment. The reprimand, it was contended, was made as a disciplinary measure and not out of personal animosity or malice.
The deceased student allegedly locked himself in a room and took his life using a nylon rope following this reprimand. The appellant argued that such an unfortunate result could not have been foreseen, and there was no intent or expectation that the student would react in such a manner.
The appellant further contended that there was no other act or omission on his part that could be linked to the alleged abetment. There were no threats, coercion, or sustained behavior that could be construed as driving the student to take the extreme step. The reprimand was a one-time action taken in response to a specific complaint from another student.
The appellant sought discharge on the grounds that the essential elements of abetment under Section 306 of the IPC, particularly mens rea, were completely absent in the given facts. The High Court, however, rejected this plea in its order dated 14.06.2024 in Crl.R.C. No.682 of 2024, upholding the charges framed under Section 306 IPC.
Upon rejection by the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9099 of 2024, challenging the validity of the charges.
During the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that the appellant's action was in response to a complaint and fell within the bounds of a guardian-like disciplinary measure. There was no evidence suggesting an intention to instigate or aid the student in committing suicide.
The Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that there appeared to be no valid legal basis for continuing proceedings against the appellant under Section 306 IPC. The Court took note of the State Counsel's submission, acknowledging that the prosecution itself did not press for continuation of charges.
Respondent No. 2, the complainant and father of the deceased student, did not appear in the proceedings despite being served notice.
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the matter, stated in clear terms that "no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life."
It further observed: "such scolding was the least, a correspondent was required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures effected."
The Court examined the factual circumstances and held: "In the considered opinion of this Court, under such admitted factual position, no mens rea can be attributed to the appellant much less, with regard to abatement of suicide committed by the deceased."
Addressing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the Court noted: "It was submitted that the response of the appellant being the correspondent was justified and it was just a chiding as a guardian to ensure that the deceased did not repeat the offence and there was peace and tranquility in the hostel."
The Court accepted that the appellant's action was taken in response to a complaint and held that: "There was nothing personal between the appellant and the deceased and only on a complaint by another student, such reprimanding was meted out to the deceased."
Regarding the scope of criminal liability, the Court concluded: "the appellant could not, even in his wildest dreams, have imagined that such scolding would lead to the deceased taking his life and thus, there was absolutely no criminal intent much less to cause the deceased to take his life."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued the following order: "The appeal is allowed. The order framing charge against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC in connection with FIR No.01/2024 registered by CBCID stands set aside. The appellant stands discharged in the said case."
The Court also directed: "Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Mayank Pandey, AOR; Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Arun, Advocate; Mr. Ankur Singhal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG; Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR; Mr. Beno Bencigar, Advocate; Mr. S.P. Kashyap, Advocate; Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR
Case Title: Thangavel v. The State, Through Inspector of Police & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 @ SLP (Criminal) No. 9099 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
[Read/Download order]
