Scolding does not amount to provoking someone to take own life: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has discharged a man who was accused of driving a student to suicide by scolding him.
The accused, in charge of a school and a hostel, had scolded the deceased following a complaint by another student. After the incident, the student killed himself.
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that no ordinary person could have imagined that a scolding would result in such a tragedy.
The top court set aside an order of the Madras High Court, which had refused to discharge the teacher for the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
"Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted by the appellant, no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such a tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life," the bench said.
The apex court said such scolding was the least to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures were effected.
"In the considered opinion of this court, under such admitted factual position, no mens rea (knowledge of wrongdoing) can be attributed to the appellant, much less, with regard to abatement of suicide committed by the deceased," the bench said.
The man, through his lawyer, had submitted that his response was justified and was merely a chiding as a guardian to ensure that the deceased did not repeat the offence, and to maintain peace and tranquillity in the hostel.
He had submitted that there was nothing personal between him and the deceased.
[Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State's health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416 and SNEHA's suicide prevention helpline - 044 24640050 or from any of the numbers in this link]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
2 hours ago
- United News of India
After 18 years, SC closes petitions on Human Rights Violations by Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh
New Delhi, June 3 (UNI) Bringing closure to a long-running legal battle, the Supreme Court has disposed of all pending petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others concerning alleged human rights violations committed by Salwa Judum activists and security forces in Chhattisgarh. These matters had remained before the apex court for nearly 18 years. The case traces back to the Chhattisgarh government's controversial deployment of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to combat Maoist/Naxalite insurgency. The SPOs, often associated with groups like the 'Koya Commandos' and Salwa Judum, were accused of committing serious rights violations in the course of anti-insurgency operations. In a landmark 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs, noting grave concerns over state-sponsored vigilantism. Despite that judgment, two writ petitions and one contempt petition remained pending until recently. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the cases, holding that the writ petitions were closed on the ground that the reliefs sought had already been addressed through the 2011 judgment. The contempt petition, which challenged the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, was found to be outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction, as it effectively sought new writs in the guise of contempt, the court ruled. The bench clarified that the enactment of a law cannot be considered contempt of court merely because it follows a judicial order. 'The promulgation simpliciter of an enactment is only an expression of the legislative function and cannot be said to be an act in contempt of a Court unless it is first established that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally or otherwise,' the Court held. Emphasising the separation of powers, the bench reiterated that any law passed by Parliament or a State legislature must be challenged solely on grounds of legislative competence or constitutional validity, not as contempt of court. The Court underlined, 'A legislature has the power to enact or amend a law, even to remove the basis of a judicial judgment, as long as it operates within the constitutional framework.' It also noted that Courts do not have the authority to treat the exercise of legislative power as contempt, simply for enacting or amending laws. Importantly, the bench observed that restoring peace and ensuring rehabilitation in Chhattisgarh remains the constitutional responsibility of both the State and the Union, citing Article 315 of the Constitution. 'It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,' the Court said. UNI SNG RN
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Man goes back on promise to marry woman with ‘aggressive sexual trait'
New Delhi: Supreme Court has quashed rape charges against a man who had a consensual physical relationship with a 30-year-old woman but backed out of his marriage promise after observing her "aggressive sexual behaviour, obsessive nature, and manipulative and vindictive tendencies". Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Allowing the man's plea to quash the FIRs lodged against him by Cyberabad police in 2022 on the woman's complaints accusing him of establishing a physical relationship with the promise of marriage, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, "The facts on record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and these aspects have a great bearing on the controversy." Writing the judgment, Justice Mehta said allowing the man's prosecution would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and the complaints were "nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant (woman)". The court was informed about a similar complaint the woman had lodged against an assistant professor at Osmania University in 2021, where she was studying. What rescued the man in the present case was the chats of the woman, who went by the name 'Muffin' on social media. In the chats, she admitted to being manipulative and her desire to "get a green card holder". "At one point of time, she also stated that it would not be difficult for her to trap the next one. In the very same breath, she mentions that she would not waste time with the accused appellant and needs to 'invest on the next victim'. She also mentions that she would irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her, and she could happily start with the next one. She also stated that she was using the accused appellant," the bench recorded in its judgment. "These chats depict the stark reality about the behavioural pattern of the de-facto complainant who appears to be having manipulative and vindictive tendencies. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant," Justices Nath and Mehta said. Quashing the FIRs, the SC said, "Hence, even assuming that the accused appellant retracted from his promise to marry the complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage or that the offence was committed by him with the de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community."
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
2 held in Rs 24 cr investment fraud linked to online grocery app
1 2 Hyderabad: Hyderabad's central crime station (CCS) police have arrested two individuals in connection with a ₹24.3 crore investment fraud case, originally registered in April 2024. The prime accused, Mukesh Chowdhary, 33, founder of Urban Market, an online grocery application, and Amit Kumar Pilania, 31, a businessman from Pune who was initially the complainant in the case, were apprehended by CCS officials from Malakpet on May 30. According to the investigation, the accused collected large sums from multiple investors during 2023–24, falsely promising business returns through the Urban Market platform. Notably, Pilania—who had initially filed a complaint against Mukesh—was later found to be an active participant in the scheme. This revelation came after a thorough review of Registrar of Companies (ROC) filings and bank transaction records. In his original complaint, Pilania claimed to have known Mukesh for over 20 years and alleged that, at Mukesh's request, he invested more than ₹15 lakh in the business. He further accused Mukesh of operating the business in his name and continuously demanding additional funds. The case was first registered at Malakpet police station on March 18, 2024, under sections 417 (cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. It was subsequently transferred to the CCS and re-registered on April 27, 2024, under the same sections. During the investigation, CCS officials found that Pilania was not just a victim but also complicit in defrauding investors. Several genuine victims later approached the police, reporting collective losses amounting to ₹24.3 crore from the fraudulent investment scheme associated with the Urban Market app. As a result, police also invoked section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, and arrested both accused from Malakpet. They were produced in court and remanded in judicial custody on May 31. The CCS continues to investigate the case to identify other victims and additional collaborators involved in the fraud.
