The Rajasthan High Court has set aside criminal charges against three teachers who were accused of abetting the suicide of a Class XII student, holding that routine disciplinary action by teachers cannot, by itself, amount to abetment of suicide. Justice Kuldeep Mathur ruled that the essential legal ingredients required to invoke Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were absent in the case.
Background of the Case
The criminal revision petitions arose from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Bikaner, framing charges under Section 305 IPC against Smt. Swarna Kalra, Smt. Meena Godwani, and Ravi Bhatnagar @ Ravindra. The prosecution case stemmed from the death of Class XII student Kumari Durga Suthar, who died by suicide in October 2005. According to the complaint, the student had left behind a note alleging that some teachers had harassed, insulted, and attempted to remove her from school.
The petitioners argued that the investigating agency had earlier filed a negative final report after finding that the student had been irregular in attending classes and had merely been reprimanded for poor attendance and academic performance. They contended that these facts did not disclose the legal ingredients of abetment required under law.
Court Observation
After examining the investigation records, the High Court noted that the material showed the student had repeatedly been advised to attend classes, prepare for examinations, and bring her father to school if her irregular attendance continued. The police investigation had concluded that no offence was made out against the teachers.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed,
“Mere reprimand, criticism or disciplinary action, in the absence of any positive act of incitement or intentional assistance coupled with the requisite mens rea, cannot amount to abetment of suicide.”
The Court further emphasized that maintaining discipline is a legitimate part of a teacher's professional duty. It said reprimanding a student for irregular attendance, poor academic performance, or indiscipline cannot, without more, be treated as instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide. The bench found no material suggesting that the petitioners intended to drive the student to take the extreme step or created a situation leaving her with no alternative.
Decision
Holding that the essential requirements of abetment under Section 107 IPC were not established, the High Court ruled that the charge under Section 305 IPC could not stand. The Court allowed both criminal revision petitions, quashed the trial court's order framing charges dated February 9, 2021, and discharged the petitioners from the offence.
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Swarna Kalra & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Connected with Ravi Bhatnagar @ Ravindra vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.)
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 263/2021 (Connected with S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 262/2021)
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur
Decision Date: 23 July 2026
