Madras High Court: In a petition filed under Section of (‘BNSS’), against the impugned chargesheet and the proceedings arising therefrom and quash the same as illegal, G.Ilangovan, J. refused to quash the chargesheet filed against Sister Sagaya Mary, the hostel warden of St. Michael’s Girls Hostel, attached to Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School in Thanjavur, for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 12th standard student. Despite the defense’s request to dismiss the charges, the Court found that sufficient grounds existed for the charges to be investigated further and refused to intervene at this stage of the proceedings.
Background:
This case involves a minor girl who was studying in the 12th standard at Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School in Trichy and staying in the school’s attached girls’ hostel. The accused, who was the hostel warden at the time, allegedly took the deceased to various places for hostel-related administrative duties. The prosecution claims that the warden assigned her tasks such as cleaning and grass cutting, which severely affected the girl’s ability to concentrate on her studies, causing significant mental stress and anguish. On 09-01-2022, the girl consumed pesticide, but despite being treated at the government hospital, she continued vomiting and failed to respond to treatment, eventually succumbing to her injuries. Thus, it was alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section of (‘IPC’) and Section of the .
Analysis and Decision
Noting the contention of the warden that she never intended the child to commit suicide, the Court said that no doubt that a Hostel Warden who is more than a guardian would have never intended the child to commit suicide. But an important aspect is that when there is allegation to the effect that the accused created circumstances, which drove the deceased to commit suicide, then whether this court can undertake the exercise of deciding the intention on the part of the accused.
The Court took note of Parangounda v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 14 Scale 642], wherein it was viewed that if the accused has created circumstances which drove the deceased to commit suicide, then the accused is liable to be punished under Section .
After reviewing the records, the Court observed that an attempt had been made to label the incident as forcible religious conversion. However, the Court acknowledged that the Investigating Officer had carried out the investigation diligently and honestly, ultimately uncovering the truth. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable basis for suspecting the allegation of conversion. It also remarked that such claims could have been avoided by those responsible for handling the situation, emphasizing the need for accountability and careful management of such sensitive matters.
The Court observed that the facts outlined in the deceased’s dying declaration contradicted the statements made by witnesses during the investigation, as recorded under Section 161(3) of the CrPC.
After perusing the dying declaration and said that whether the circumstances spoken by the deceased during the dying Declaration are sufficient, can be tested only at the time of trial.
The Court highlighted that the truth of the dying Declaration cannot be tested by this court while exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC. Thus, it concluded that this is not the best case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.
Concerning the contention of the accused that the ingredients of the offence under Section of the , are not attracted, the Court said that this is a matter for consideration by the trial court at the time of framing appropriate charges.
[Sr. Sagaya Mary v. State, Crl.OP(MD)No.14605 of 2024, decided on 16-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner : Nithya Ramakrishnan, Senior Counsel
For Respondent: N.Mohideen Basha, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, N.Anantha Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .