Supreme Court Clears School Official of Abetment to Suicide Charges in Student’s Death

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has discharged a man who had been accused of abetting a student’s suicide, ruling that a routine act of disciplinary scolding does not amount to criminal intent or abetment under the law.

The case involved a school official who was also in charge of a student hostel.

He had reprimanded a student based on a complaint made by another student. Tragically, following the incident, the student who was scolded was later found dead, having taken his own life by hanging.

The unfortunate incident led to the official being charged under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to abetment of suicide.

The case had previously been heard by the Madras High Court, which refused to discharge the official from the charges, thereby allowing the case to proceed to trial.

However, the Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, overturned this decision and ruled in favor of the appellant.

A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that, upon careful examination of the circumstances, the charges of abetment were not sustainable.

The court emphasized that a simple act of scolding, particularly when it was done in response to a student complaint and with the intent of maintaining discipline, cannot be equated with an intentional act that would drive a person to take such a drastic step.

“After considering the facts in their totality, we think that this is an appropriate case for judicial intervention,” the bench noted in its judgment.

“As rightly argued by the appellant, no reasonable person could have anticipated that a verbal reprimand — especially one that arose from another student’s grievance — would lead to such a heartbreaking outcome.”

The Supreme Court went on to assert that the scolding was, at best, a corrective action intended to address the misconduct reported by another student and to restore order within the hostel environment.

It ruled that there was no indication of any animosity or personal motive behind the incident, nor was there any evidence to suggest that the official intended to mentally harass or coerce the student in any manner.

“In the considered view of this Court, given the admitted facts of the case, it is impossible to attribute mens rea — that is, the criminal intent required to sustain a charge of abetment to suicide — to the appellant,” the bench stated.

The appellant, through his legal counsel, had defended his actions by explaining that his words were merely a form of guidance and disciplinary correction, made in the capacity of a guardian or caretaker responsible for the well-being of the students in the hostel.

He emphasized that the reprimand was not meant to humiliate or target the student, but rather to ensure that the alleged misconduct was not repeated and that harmony within the student community was preserved.

He further clarified that there was no personal grievance or ill will between him and the deceased student, and that the incident was strictly professional and in line with his responsibilities as a hostel warden and educator.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court not only discharged the man from all charges but also provided clarity on the interpretation of abetment to suicide in cases involving disciplinary actions by teachers or guardians.

The judgment underscores that ordinary acts of correction, particularly those intended to uphold discipline and made without malicious intent, cannot be construed as criminal acts unless clear evidence of incitement or coercion is established.