S. 107 BNS | Teacher Scolding Student For Consuming Intoxicant Can't Be Prosecuted For Suicide Abetment: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has held that teachers cannot be prosecuted for merely maintaining discipline and reprimanding a student against intoxication, which in turn drove the student to take away his own life by way of suicide, without having any criminal intent. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 117]While setting aside an order of cognizance against teachers and warden of a school, the Bench of Justice...
The Orissa High Court has held that teachers cannot be prosecuted for merely maintaining discipline and reprimanding a student against intoxication, which in turn drove the student to take away his own life by way of suicide, without having any criminal intent. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 117]
While setting aside an order of cognizance against teachers and warden of a school, the Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed–
“A regular warning lacks the criminal intent. If a student is overly sensitive or sentimental, a teacher cannot be blamed for a tragic outcome that an ordinary person could not anticipate from a basic routine discipline. Having said that, since the petitioners are the faculty members and warden of the school in question, having had no direct involvement in the death of the deceased, cannot be held in any way responsible for having abetted his suicidal death.”
The SDJM, Champua took cognizance against the present petitioners, who are teachers and warden of the school where the deceased was prosecuting his studies, for offences under Sections 107 (abetment of suicide) and 3(5) (common intention) of the BNS, on the allegation that they abetted the 16-year-old deceased-student to commit suicide by jumping from the 4th floor of the hostel building.
Being aggrieved by the order of cognizance, the petitioners filed this revision seeking discharge as no prima facie case is made out against them from the materials placed on record by the police by way of the charge-sheet.
Upon perusal of the materials, the Court found that the petitioners caught certain students, including the deceased, in an intoxicated condition subsequent to the consumption of a substance/drug named 'Dendrite'. They allegedly reprimanded the students and warned them to apprise their guardians of the episode. Due to such warning, it was submitted, the deceased panicked and out of fear and embarrassment, he jumped from the 4th floor of the hostel building to commit suicide.
It was vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that such act was strictly for enforcing discipline amongst the students and in no way, the petitioners intended to harass the petitioner or to knowingly instigate him to take away his own life.
Justice Pattanaik placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in V.P. Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 994 and in Thangavel v. The State, 2025 Live law (SC) 659 to hold that actions, such as, suspending a student for misconduct or enforcing institutional discipline and subsequent death of that student cannot be categorized as abetment, as mere scolding alone is not a suicide trigger and a reasonable person cannot anticipate that standard corrective warning would drive a student to take his own life. The Judge further observed–
“According to this Court, any act or omission to instigate or aid commission of suicide is essential to allege abetment. A proximate link between the harassment and subsequent death of the deceased shall have to be established. More important is the mens rea with prima facie evidence to suggest that the accused with the requisite intention subjected the deceased to commit suicide…The legal threshold for abetment of suicide requires proof of active instigation, provocation or intentional aid. Any such standard administrative or academic discipline in a school resulting in the death of a student by suicide lacks the necessary criminal intent to constitute an offence.”
Since in the present case, there was no prima facie evidence to suggest that the petitioners used to routinely harass the deceased or actively and intentionally instigated him to take the extreme step of doing away with his own life, they cannot be prosecuted merely for reprimanding him to ensure discipline.
“It is reiterated that a disciplinary measure adopted by a school reprimanding students would not amount to provoking any of them to commit suicide unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately intended without any justifiable cause or reason. A simple act of reprimand of a student by a teacher, who is under moral obligation to maintain discipline would not amount to instigation or intentionally aiding to the commission of a suicide.”
Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance against the petitioners was set aside.
Date of Judgment: October 12, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. L. Mishra, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. S. Panda, Addl. Standing Counsel