Judgment 1. The petitioner herein is an accused in P.R.C.No.13 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The first respondent Police filed a final report against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Section 305 IPC. The petitioner filed this petition seeking to quash the proceedings against her. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working as a Headmistress in Panchayat Union Middle School, Neerathanallur, Kumbakonam Panchayat Union, Thanjavur District. The daughter of the defacto complainant in this case by name Suriya (deceased) was studying in the said school. According to the prosecution, when the petitioner as a teacher asked her student Suriya to keep her handbag at a place, a five hundred rupees note fell out from the bag and when she was keeping it inside the bag, the petitioner having seen that mistook it that the deceased was committing theft and the petitioner reprimanded the deceased and stated that 'instead of committing theft, she should go and die'. As the deceased was scolded in the presence of the students and other teachers by the petitioner, she felt ashamed and she went to her house, poured kerosene on her body and set fire. She was admitted in the hospital on 12.02.2011 and died on the next day. The deceased was aged only 14 years at that time. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had only advised the deceased for stealthily removing the amount from the petitioner's handbag and she had no bad intention and as a teacher, with the bona fide expectation, she had only advised the student. Learned senior counsel further submitted that even as per the allegation made by the prosecution, the ingredients of the offence under Section 305 IPC are not made out and the petitioner is not responsible for the act of suicide committed by the student. Learned senior counsel further submitted that as a gesture, the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-to the mother of the deceased and now a further sum of Rs.1,10,000/-is also paid to the mother of the deceased, who is present before this Court today. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, who is mother of the deceased, has admitted the fact of receiving a total sum of Rs.3,20,000/- from the petitioner. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, who is mother of the deceased, has admitted the fact of receiving a total sum of Rs.3,20,000/- from the petitioner. 5. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the case has not been committed in the Sessions so far and also submitted that the petitioner had called the deceased as a thief, and she was put to shame and disgrace in the presence of other students and teachers. Being ashamed, she had committed suicide and as such the petitioner is responsible for the death of the deceased. 6. This Court considered the submissions and perused the records. 7. It appears from the statements of some of the students and teachers that the petitioner was scolding the deceased Suriya for having committed theft of cash and the deceased had denied about committing theft and she was crying. After this incident, the deceased went to her home and she poured kerosene on her body and set fire. The mother of the deceased also gave a statement to the effect that the deceased had informed her that she was put to shame, since her teacher (the petitioner herein) had focused her as a thief. 8. It is a very unfortunate incident. It is not possible to decide now whether the deceased committed theft of amount from the handbag of the petitioner or the petitioner mistook that the deceased committed theft. The fact remains that the petitioner has suspected that the deceased attempted to commit theft of cash from her handbag and consequently, the petitioner had scolded the deceased in the presence of other students and teachers. The question now to be decided is whether the act of the petitioner herein would attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 305 IPC, which is as follows; 305. Abetment of suicide of child or insane person.-If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishment with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 9. Section 107 IPC defines 'Abetment' which reads as follows; "107. Section 107 IPC defines 'Abetment' which reads as follows; "107. 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 capacity 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." 10. For the first category, there should be direct act of instigation by the accused. The second category need not be discussed for the purpose of this case. For the third category, the accused should have intentionally aided the deceased. In this case, as per the available facts, there is nothing to show that there was any intentional act by the petitioner for the deceased to commit suicide or intentionally aided or there was any illegal omission on the part of the petitioner for the deceased to commit suicide. 11. The words attributed by the petitioner are only to the extent that 'instead of committing theft, the deceased should go and die'. By attributing those words, it cannot be said that the petitioner being a teacher intentionally wanted her student to commit suicide. Of-course, she should have been more careful in using words. 12. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1141 (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.) in paragraph Nos.12 to 15, it is observed as follows; "12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25.7.1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased, "to go and die". For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under section 161 Cr. P.C., when reportedly, the deceased after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under section 161 Cr. For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under section 161 Cr. P.C., when reportedly, the deceased after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C., is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told that the appellant had asked him "to go and die". Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25.7.1998 ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27.7.1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25.7.1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27.7.1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25.7.1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27.7.1998 would itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25.7.1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below. 13. The next most important material is the suicide note left by the deceased. The translated copy is annexed to this appeal as Annexure P-1. It is extracted: SUICIDE NOTE Dainik Bhaskar 581, South civil Lines, Jabalpur. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below. 13. The next most important material is the suicide note left by the deceased. The translated copy is annexed to this appeal as Annexure P-1. It is extracted: SUICIDE NOTE Dainik Bhaskar 581, South civil Lines, Jabalpur. Agent's name-Sengar News Agency Place-Goshalpur Number of copies-409 Date Name of the person who prepared lable Goshalpur Sengar has threatened to report under dowry demand and threatened to involve family members due to this I am writing in my full senses that Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my death. Sanjay Sengar also Mukraj commandaer loota tha Sanjay ki. Sengar News Agency Goshalpur I was threatened therefore I am Dying Sengar, Goshalpur My name Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam Babloo Goutam In my senses, Sengarresponsible for my death. My Moti, Darling my Moti. You look after my Chukho. My darling Moti Neelam Sengar @ Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam, Gandigram Budhagar. Sengaris responsible for my death Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my death Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my death Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam, Gandhigram Budhagar." 14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt. Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt. Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. before the Investigating Officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26.7.1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25.7.1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26.7.1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25.7.1998. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25.7.1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26.7.1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25.7.1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of "abetment" are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under section 306 IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25.7.1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death. 15. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The charge-sheet dated 2.7.2001 framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, in Sessions Trial No.469 of 1998 for an offence under section 306 IPC and the order of the High Court under challenge are hereby quashed." 13. In the decision of this Court reported in 2007-1-L.W.(Crl.) 163 [Ananda Sekaran Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, K1 Sembiam Police Station, Chennai), it is observed in paragraphs 19 and 21 as follows: "19. In the second case, referring the above decision, when the case was dealt with under section 306 read with 107 IPC, the Apex Court held that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment such as 'to go and die' cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea and therefore, the person so said cannot be convicted under section 306 IPC. If the accused had the motive or intention that his wife should die committing suicide on her own, then there must be some instance bringing to surface the mens rea, which is essential as held by the Apex Court. If the accused had the motive or intention that his wife should die committing suicide on her own, then there must be some instance bringing to surface the mens rea, which is essential as held by the Apex Court. No instance brought to the notice of the Court how the accused entertained mens rea or how and why he should think that his wife should commit suicide for which he should have abetted ........ 21. In State of Gujarat Vs. Sunilkumar Kanaiyalal Jain (1997 Crl.L.J.2014) a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court considering the scope of Section 306 IPC elaborately dealt with abetment, realising the responsibility of the Court also has observed, "better die today than tomorrow", if had been uttered cannot be said to be the abetment in the eye of law since the words might have been uttered due to outburst of one's own fatuity or anger or consternation without any intention or knowledge or might be the rude or insulting, not with desire to instigate the person to commit suicide, which principle also could be extended to the above case on hand....." 14. In another decision of this Court reported in (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 34, (N. Anjali Devi and another Vs. State by the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram and another) in paragraph No.15, it is observed as follows; "One important thing to be noted in this case is that the petitioners being the Teachers of the Government School in the interest of the Institution correct any mistake done by the student in order to cultivate good habits and get rid of bad habits, such as stealing money. In fact, the father of the deceased girl had been summoned and it is stated that he gave a letter of apology for the conduct of his daughter and also undertook that the same would not recur again. In such view of the matter, the act of the petitioners cannot be said that it would amount to abetment of suicide." 15. By applying the well settled principles pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by our High Court, and taking into consideration of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be held directly liable for the suicide committed by the deceased, as there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner. By applying the well settled principles pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by our High Court, and taking into consideration of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be held directly liable for the suicide committed by the deceased, as there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.13 of 2012 against the petitioner is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.