Delhi HC quashes summons against former DU college principal in suicide abetment case

The Delhi High Court said decisions of a person holding a certain position may be harsh and impact an employee but they cannot be held liable for abetting a staffer’s suicide in the absence of criminal intent.

Justice Amit Sharma’s observation came while quashing a trial court order summoning the former principal of B R Ambedkar College of Delhi University and a senior assistant working in the principal’s office in a 2013 case of abetment to suicide of a woman staffer of the college.

“A person holding a certain post, whether in a private sector or a public sector, in the course of duties has to take certain decisions which at times can be harsh causing hardship to an employee,” the judge wrote in his October 29 order.

The court further said in the absence of the requisite mens rea (criminal intent), the action could not be termed as one amounting to incitement or abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.

“There cannot be an absolute rule and each case will depend on its facts and circumstance,” it noted.

The two petitioners moved court challenging the trial court’s 2014 order summoning them in connection with the death of the former woman employee of the college who succumbed to burn injuries after setting herself ablaze in front of the Delhi Secretariat in 2013.

During the investigation, a purported suicide note attributed the woman’s act of self immolation to the mental and physical harassment meted out by the college principal, the senior assistant and others.

Before her death, the woman had given a statement to the sub-divisional magistrate, blaming the petitioners as well as several authorities, including the vice-chancellor of the Delhi University (DU) and then chief minister of Delhi for not supporting her.

She had alleged being subjected to a heavy workload apart from the harassment by the petitioners and claimed that her complaints to the authorities fell on deaf ears. She said she was “unjustly terminated” from service in 2012.

The high court noted all her complaints were closed by the authorities concerned after an enquiry.

“The deceased’s service was terminated on March 13, 2012 and the date of the attempted suicide was on September 30, 2013 but there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioners were in contact, in any manner, with the deceased post her termination and immediately before the attempted suicide,” it noted.

The court said no overt or covert acts had been attributed to the petitioners which was proximate to the time of the woman’s act of suicide.

The high court said the complaints were dealt with by different statutory bodies that were not under the immediate control of the college principal and the suicide note had not only raised grievances against the petitioners but also against the then Delhi chief minister and the DU vice-chancellor.

“The incident of attempted suicide has already been enquired into by the committee constituted by National Commission for Women and B L Garg Commission apart from the present charge sheet in which the petitioners stand exonerated,” the court said.