Scolding does not amount to provoking someone to take own life: SC

The Supreme Court has discharged a man who was accused of driving a student to suicide by scolding him.
The accused, in charge of a school and a hostel, had scolded the deceased following a complaint by another student. After the incident, the student hanged himself in a room.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that no ordinary person could have imagined that a scolding would result in such a tragedy.
The top court set aside an order of the Madras High Court, which had refused to discharge the teacher for the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
"Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted by the appellant, no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such a tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life," the bench said.
The apex court said such scolding was the least to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures were effected.
"In the considered opinion of this court, under such admitted factual position, no mens rea (knowledge of wrongdoing) can be attributed to the appellant, much less, with regard to abatement of suicide committed by the deceased," the bench said.
The man, through his lawyer, had submitted that his response was justified and was merely a chiding as a guardian to ensure that the deceased did not repeat the offence, and to maintain peace and tranquillity in the hostel.
He had submitted that there was nothing personal between him and the deceased.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

4 hours ago

• Time of India

Unlawful adoption: Telangana HC rejects couple's plea for custody of 'purchased' baby; after police bust baby trafficking racket

HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court recently dismissed a petition filed by a couple seeking custody of a male infant they purchased from the infant's biological mother through an agent. The baby was rescued by police at Chaitanyapuri when they busted an interstate baby trafficking racket. Along with the infant's adoptive parents, the infant's biological mother also sought custody. However, the court noted that the child's adoption did not occur through the proper adoption guidelines. Rachakonda police, in March 2025, busted a child trafficking racket, rescuing 16 infants and arresting around 15 persons. The accused included the kingpin of the racket, K Krishnaveni, a 'supplier' from Gujarat named Vandana, their associates, and adoptive couples. The petition seeking the child's custody was filed by a Jeedimetla resident couple as well as the child's biological mother. Biological mom, adoptive couple were family friends Their counsel alleged that since the child's biological mother and the adoptive couple were family friends, they gave the child in adoption, a process approved by the Supreme Court in a similar case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Arguing that the child should not be deprived of parental care, they sought the child's custody. In response, the govt pleader opposed the petition, arguing that the couple had paid a large sum of money to the biological mother in exchange for the baby, and submitted to the court the couple's confession statement recorded at the time of their arrest. The confession statement clearly mentions how the couple were childless for over a decade since their marriage. The counsel also informed the court that after the child's rescue, his biological mother went absconding and did not respond to notices from the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). After hearing both sides, the high court noted that this cannot be a case of illegal detention of the child and observed that the couple did not follow the adoption rules according to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) and the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act. No legal standing established, says court The court also observed that the petitioners failed to establish their legal standing (locus) or provide consistent and truthful facts about the adoption and the biological mother. Furthermore, the adoption deed is unregistered and does not comply with legal requirements. The cited Supreme Court decision is also factually different and is not applicable to this case, the high court ruled. Maintaining that the child currently being in the custody of the Child Welfare Committee was safer and more legal, the court dismissed their petition.

Hindustan Times

6 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

6 years, no closure in child rape PIL: SC revives key issue it wrapped up days earlier

The Supreme Court last month disposed of a suo motu public interest petition it had initiated in 2019 to address the alarming rise in child rape cases across the country -- only for another bench to revive a key unresolved aspect of the same matter barely a week later, providing a telling commentary on institutional memory and follow-through. When it resurfaced in March 2021 under a new bench, the compensation issue, which was once central to the court's intervention, never came up again. (HT Photo) The petition, registered as 'In Re: Alarming Rise in the Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents', was formally closed on May 15 by a bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi, as one of her last orders before retiring. Justice Trivedi retired on June 9 but her last working day was May 16, owing to an overseas trip But on May 23, another bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna admitted a new writ petition that brought back to centre stage a long-forgotten issue in the same case -- the framing and implementation of a dedicated compensation, rehabilitation, welfare and education scheme for Pocso (protection of children from sexual offences) victims. The near-immediate revival of the compensation issue, which was left unattended despite explicit directions by the top court five years ago, lays bare a systemic lapse -- a PIL that lasted six years was wrapped up without taking one of its most vital components to its logical conclusion. The 2019 suo motu proceedings were triggered by intense public concern and media reporting on rising incidents of sexual violence against children. On July 12, 2019, the Supreme Court took cognisance and registered the case to formulate urgent judicial directions. By July 25, the court had appointed senior advocate V Giri as amicus curiae and directed the creation of exclusive Pocso courts across India to address delays in trials. Giri was assisted by advocate Uttar Babbar (now designated as a senior counsel). On December 16, 2019, noting an 'extremely high' pendency of Pocso cases in some states, the court issued state-specific directions. The bench, then headed by Justice Deepak Gupta, also expressed its intention to formulate a national compensation scheme for Pocso victims -- a task deemed necessary for their psychological and financial recovery. In March 2020, the court went a step further and summoned a joint secretary from the Ministry of Women and Child Development to assist in designing the scheme. 'On the next date of hearing, we shall consider the issue of framing a national scheme for payment of compensation to victims of offences under the Pocso Act,' the order read. But that next date took more than a year to arrive. Following Justice Gupta's retirement in May 2020, the matter fell into procedural limbo. When it resurfaced in March 2021 under a new bench, the compensation issue, which was once central to the court's intervention, never came up again. Over 15 hearings took place between March 2021 and May 2025, but not one order addressed the proposed scheme. Instead, the focus narrowed to timelines for investigation and trial under the Pocso Act. By the time Justice Trivedi's bench finally decided to close the matter on May 15, 2025, the compensation issue had effectively vanished from judicial radar. 'Since the timelines have been stipulated under the Pocso Act... the same must be adhered to as far as possible,' the May 15 order recorded, urging Union and state governments to create more exclusive Pocso courts and sensitise investigating officials. 'Subject to the above, the suo moto proceedings are hereby closed.' On May 23, just eight days after the disposal, the Supreme Court admitted a fresh writ petition filed by Just Rights for Children Alliance, that pointedly noted the unfinished business of the 2019 case. Senior counsel Pragyan Pradip Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that while the Registry of the Supreme Court had indeed drafted a 'Scheme for Compensation, Rehabilitation, Welfare and Education of POCSO Victims, 2019' pursuant to earlier orders, the scheme was neither discussed nor adopted by the Union government or the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). The new petition now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Union government and NALSA to formally notify and implement a compensation framework tailored to the needs of child victims of sexual abuse. It also seeks immediate disbursement of compensation to individual victims already identified, as well as uniform implementation of the existing NALSA 2018 scheme in the interim. Justice Nagarathna's bench has issued notice to the Union of India, NALSA and the Ministry of Women and Child Development, with the case now slated for further hearing on August 18, 2025. The swift succession of the two orders, one closing the book and the other reopening a forgotten chapter, highlights the ironies and inefficiencies that can sometimes plague long-drawn PILs in the Supreme Court. Simultaneously, the revival of the issue by a new bench not only re-emphasises its importance but also underscores the need for institutional continuity in PIL monitoring, especially in cases driven by the court's own conscience (suo motu).

The Hindu

11 hours ago

• The Hindu

No-fly zone declared in Vellore on June 25-26 for Chief Minister's visit

Collector V. R. Subbulaxmi on Sunday has declared that the district will be a no fly zone on June 25-26 during the visit of the Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, who will inaugurate refurbished British era Pentland Multi-Speciality Hospital that comes within Vellore Corporation limits and distribute government financial assistance to beneficiaries. According to a press release, all individuals and civil agencies are prohibited from flying any non-conventional aerial objects in the district without any prior permission on the said days. The district police will destroy or confiscate any UAVs that violate this restriction. Further, the operator found violating these orders will be charged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It has been informed that approval for utilisation of drones by any operator or civil/government agency is governed by guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the release said.