Libertatem Magazine

Madras High Court: Teacher not held for the Abetment of Suicide, transfer of investigation to another agency does not arise

Contents of this Page

In the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. The Superintendent of Police on 18th March 2020, Murugan, a student of 10th standard in the Government Higher Secondary School, Kasilingapuram, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, attempted to commit suicide by consuming insecticide on 11.11.2015 from the fear to bring his parents to the teacher as he was playing in the classroom and was disturbing other classmates. The next house neighbour had taken him to hospital and after six days of treatment, Murugan succumbed due to the poison. The learned trial court had framed charges against the applicants for the commission of an offence under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C, for abetment of suicide.

Arguments of Petitioner

Council T. Selvakumaran represented the case from the side of the petitioner. The father of the deceased Murugan stated that knowing that Pattu Pushpavalli, the maths teacher was always nagging his son and scolding him with filthy language without any reason the petitioner requested the Head Master and the maths teacher not to nag or scold his son in front of other students. Despite the said request, Pattu Pushpavalli was continuing to nag and scold Murugan. On 11.11.2015 Murugan went to school cheerful and returned home within a few hours with tears. At that time nobody was present in his house. He was seen in the dejected mood by the neighbours. Murugan consumed pesticide kept in his home for agricultural purpose.

The present writ petition is filed seeking transfer of investigation in Crime No.66 of 2015 pending on the file of the second respondent to the third respondent/ CBCID, Madurai Unit or any other investigating agency.

Arguments of Respondent

The Additional Public Prosecutor, S. Chandrasekar would submit that on receiving intimation from the Hospital, FIR was registered on 16.11.2016 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded in the Section 161 statement. The witnesses, are relatives, nearby residents, few students of the class and the concerned Teacher and Head Master. None of the witnesses has spoken anything incriminating the said Teacher. Murugan was very playful in the school and he had no interest in studies. Arumugam, one of the witnesses in his Section 161 statement, stated that when he rushed to Murugan after hearing the noise of his vomiting, Murugan confessed that since Teacher has asked to bring his father, but he was scared to take his father to the Teacher and therefore, he has consumed insecticide. The statement of the deceased person which say about the cause for the death also does not give any incriminating material to suspect the class Teacher.

Court’s Decision

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held that the request of the petitioner to transfer the investigation to some other agency does not arise. The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The respondent Police are at liberty to file a final report. If the petitioner still feels there is material available to prosecute, it is open to him to the exhaustive remedy available under the law. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author