Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 13.3.2007 in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2007 in S.C.No.81 of 2006, dated 13.3.2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nilgiris at Ootacamund, dismissing the discharge application filed by the revision petitioner/accused. 2. The respondent/complainant filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of the complaint given by one Radhakrishnan, the maternal uncle of the deceased Girish. 3. The gist and essence of the case of the prosecution is as follows: On 6.11.2004, the deceased Girish committed the theft of one Calculator from a petty shop owned by Koya Kutty and that has been intimated to Srikrishna, the petitioner/accused on 8.11.2004, who is the Physical Education Teacher in the School. It was found that the deceased committed theft of the Calculator and the accused directed the deceased Girish to hand over the same to the owner of the petty shop. In pursuance of the same, on 8.11.2004, the accused sent Senthamari and Ravichandran, to go to the house of the deceased Girish and handed over the Calculator to the said Koya Kutty. Then the said Girish attended the Examinations and on the evening at about 5 O'clock, the said Girish consumed poison unable to bear the allegation of thief and scarred for the parents. The said Girish was subsequently admitted in Hospital and he died on 10.11.2004 and thereafter, complaint was given by the maternal uncle Radhakrishnan, in pursuance of which, the FIR had been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and on investigation, the offence was altered into one under Section 306 IPC. 4. The final report has been filed against the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/accused filed an application before the trial Court to discharge him from the charge framed against him. After giving opportunity to both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said discharge application, against which, the present Crl.R.C. had been filed by the revision petitioner/accused. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have not been made out. In the FIR/complaint which was given on 10.11.2004 given by Radhakrishnan, the maternal uncle of the deceased Girish, and the said Radhakrishnan has not mentioned either the name of the accused or the part played by him. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have not been made out. In the FIR/complaint which was given on 10.11.2004 given by Radhakrishnan, the maternal uncle of the deceased Girish, and the said Radhakrishnan has not mentioned either the name of the accused or the part played by him. In the FIR, it was specifically mentioned that the sister of the deceased threatened the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the sister of the deceased told the deceased that the factum of theft will be intimated to their parents. Afraid of the same, the deceased committed suicide. Learned counsel further contended that the documentary evidence has not been properly considered by the trial Court while dismissing the discharge application. He further submitted that during inquest, no overt act had been attributed against the accused. He further submitted that for abetment of suicide, the basic ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 IPC, have not been prima-facie made out as against the revision petitioner/accused. Furthermore, he submitted that the revision petitioner/accused was examined by the investigating officer and his statement under Section 161 Cr,.P.C. does not show any nexus between the action of the revision petitioner/accused and the commission of offence and there is no evidence to link the accused with the offence. The trial Court did not consider all the above aspects in proper perspective and hence, he prayed for allowing the Crl.R.C. and discharge him from the charge framed under Section 306 IPC and to set aside the impugned judgment. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and Kerala High Court. 6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that in the statement of the sister of the deceased, namely Seema who is also studying in the same School where the deceased was studying, she stated that the revision petitioner/accused scolded the deceased and the deceased was beaten by the revision petitioner/accused, which resulted in depression in his mind and hence, he committed suicide. Furthermore, 56 witnesses were examined and the documents were collected and then only, the investigating agency has filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. These aspects have been rightly considered by the trial Court and hence, the discharge application was dismissed. Furthermore, 56 witnesses were examined and the documents were collected and then only, the investigating agency has filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. These aspects have been rightly considered by the trial Court and hence, the discharge application was dismissed. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and he prayed for dismissal of the Crl.R.C. 7. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and the relevant facts, it is seen that the deceased Girish is 13 year old, studying in VIIth Standard, that the revision petitioner is his Physical Education Teacher and his sister Seema is studying in IXth Standard in the same School where his brother is studying. It is the case of the prosecution that the revision petitioner's attitude resulted in instigation for the deceased Girish to commit suicide. This Court has to consider as to whether the action of the revision petitioner/accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 8. In the FIR/complaint, it was specifically mentioned that on 8.11.2004 at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased quarelled with his sister and has consumed poison and he was admitted in the Government Medical College Hospital, Kallikettai and he died on 10.11.2004 at about 5.45 p.m. On the basis of the said allegation in the said complaint, a case has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and subsequently the offence was altered into one under Section 306 IPC. 9. During the course of inquest, it is stated that, on 6.11.2004, the deceased has committed the theft of the Calculator from Koyan Kutty petty shop and on 8.11.2004, it came to the knowledge of the revision petitioner/accused and he has beat the deceased and he scolded the said Girish as thief and directed him to handover the Calculator to the owner. His sister Seema has threatened her brother, the deceased Girish that she will intimate the factum of theft to their father and fearing the same, the deceased Girish committed suicide. 10. It is relevant to notice in Column 9 of the inquest report as follows: TAMIL 11. The witness No.1 is C.M.Radhakrishnan, the complainant. The witness No.2 is Srinivasan is the father of the deceased. The witness No.3 is the mother of the deceased Girish. The witness No.4 is the sister of the deceased Girish. 10. It is relevant to notice in Column 9 of the inquest report as follows: TAMIL 11. The witness No.1 is C.M.Radhakrishnan, the complainant. The witness No.2 is Srinivasan is the father of the deceased. The witness No.3 is the mother of the deceased Girish. The witness No.4 is the sister of the deceased Girish. She is not an eye-witness to the incident happened in the School. Senthamarai and Ravichandran who accompanied Girish to his house, were examined as witness Nos.10 and 11. In their statement, they have stated that on 8.11.2004, at 10 a.m., the revision petitioner/accused called them and directed them to go along with Girish and bring the Calculator in his house and so, they accompanied Girish and they intimated the same to his mother and they have taken back the Calculator and handed over the same to the owner of the petty shop Koyan Kutti and left the place. So, the statement of the eye-witnesses has not revealed anything about the beating/scolding/inducement/instigation/ abetment by the revision petitioner/accused to cause the death of the deceased Girish to commit suicide. Further, the co-students of the deceased Girish have been examined and they have not whispered anything about the incident. The Headmaster and other Teachers were examined by the investigating officer and they have also not stated anything about the occurrence. So, except the sole statement of Seema during the investigation, there is no evidence available for instigation or inducement or abetment of the revision petitioner/accused, resulting in the death of Girish to commit suicide, but the said Seema is not an eye-witness. 12. Now, it is appropriate to consider as to whether the ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 IPC, have been made out or not, and the same reads as follows: Section 107 IPC: Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." Section 306 IPC: Abetment of suicide : If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 13. In this regard, it is appropriate to consider the following decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused: (a) 2005 Cri.L.J. 4322 (Cyriac Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy): (Kerala High Court): "18. An indirect influence or an oblique impact which the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which drove him to suicide will not be sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fatal impulse or an ill-fated thought of the deceased, however unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot unfortunately, touch the issue. Those cannot fray the fabric of the provision contained in Section 306, IPC. In short, it is not what the deceased 'felt', but what the accused 'intended' by his act which is more important in this context. Of course, the deceased's frail psychology which forced him to the suicide also may become relevant, but it is only after establishing the requisite intention of accused." (b) 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 1048 = 2010 (8) SCC 628 (Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat): "16. Insofar as Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, we could not find a single word in the FIR or even in the so-called suicide note. Insofar as Section 306 is concerned, even at the cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. Insofar as Section 306 is concerned, even at the cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a proper allegation. It would have to be objectively seen whether the allegations made could reasonably be viewed as proper allegations against the appellant-accused to the effect that he had intended or engineered the suicide of the person concerned by his acts, words, etc. When we put the present FIR on this test, it falls short." (c) 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 51 (Yogesh Vs. State of Maharashtra): "16. It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in the section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible. (See State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh ( 1977 (4) SCC 39 = 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 and Prafulla Kumar Samal (Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 (3) SCC 4 = 1979 SCC (Cri) 609)." 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused also relied on a decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24858 of 2006, dated 28.7.2009, (N.Anjali Devi and another Vs. Ramesh Singh ( 1977 (4) SCC 39 = 1977 SCC (Cri) 533 and Prafulla Kumar Samal (Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 (3) SCC 4 = 1979 SCC (Cri) 609)." 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused also relied on a decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24858 of 2006, dated 28.7.2009, (N.Anjali Devi and another Vs. State by The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram and another), wherein, relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court, it was held that since the teachers want to correct the errors of the students, it will not be induce a person to commit suicide and it will not be termed that due to instigation or abetment, that person (deceased) committed suicide. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the ingredients of Section 107 IPC have not been made out. In the present case, there is no clinching prima-facie evidence to fasten the liability on the revision petitioner/accused. On a perusal of the said decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, I am of the view that the trial Court committed error in not discharging the petitioner. 15. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that after 10 a.m. on the fateful day, after handing over the Calculator to the owner of the petty shop, namely Koyan Kutty, the deceased Girish attended examination and then he left the School at 5 p.m. and then he had quarelled with his sister Seema and as she threatened the deceased stating that she will intimate the theft to their father and afraid of the same, the deceased Girish committed suicide. 16. In this case, prima-facie there is no evidence to conclude that neither Seema nor the revision petitioner/accused induced or incited or instigated or abetted the deceased with an intention to commit suicide. 17. The teachers are next to parents and they would take steps to bring up the students and correct their illegal activities. Admittedly, in this case, a Calculator has been stolen by the deceased and as per the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clearly revealed that on 6.11.2004, when he brought the Calculator, the mother made enquiry and at that time, he replied that he gave the battery of the tape-recorder to Saravanakumar and got the Calculator. Admittedly, in this case, a Calculator has been stolen by the deceased and as per the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clearly revealed that on 6.11.2004, when he brought the Calculator, the mother made enquiry and at that time, he replied that he gave the battery of the tape-recorder to Saravanakumar and got the Calculator. Admittedly, on 8.11.2004, Ravichandran, Senthamarai and Girish have taken the Calculator from the mother of the deceased Girish and handed over the same to Koyan Kutty—petty shop owner, and so, naturally the Teachers wanted to correct the students. Such a way, the revision petitioner/accused has corrected the deceased Girish. 18. Further, the deceased attended the Examination on that day and at 5 p.m. he left the School. Admittedly, as per Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Seema, and the FIR, which also states that she has threatened her brother that she will intimate to his father as to what had happened in the School and afraid of the same, he committed suicide. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the trial Court committed error in not considering the same. 19. The trial Court is correct in holding that the FIR is not an Encyclopaedia. But it must contain the particulars as to the offender, time of occurrence and the date of occurrence. Admittedly, in this case, the name of the revision petitioner/accused was not mentioned in the FIR. Furthermore, the case has been first registered only under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and subsequently, it was altered to one under Section 306 IPC. As already stated, in the complaint itself, it was specifically mentioned that the sister of the deceased threatened the deceased that she will inform to their parents, and afraid of the same, the deceased Girish consumed poison. 20. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the facts already narrated above, I am of the view that the trial Court committed error in not considering the above aspects. So, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 21. Accordingly: (a) The Crl.R.C. is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. (b) The revision petitioner/accused is discharged from the case in S.C.No.81 of 2006 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Nilgiris at Ootacamund. (c) M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.