The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra has dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Sister Mercy @ Elizabeth challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court’s Judgment refusing to quash charges under Section 305 IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of a Class 6 student. The Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision, leaving all contentions open for trial.
Background of the Case:
Sister Mercy @ Elizabeth, a Christian nun and teacher at Carmel Convent School in Ambikapur, was named in an FIR (Crime No. 34/2024) registered at Manipur Police Station under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose following the suicide of Archisha Sinha, a student of Class 6, on 6 February 2024. A suicide note recovered by police mentioned the petitioner’s name.
The petitioner approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet dated 13 April 2024 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petition was dismissed by the High Court on 29 July 2024.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Counsel for Sister Mercy argued that:
- She taught only Class 4 and had no academic contact with the deceased, a student of Class 6.
- On the day of the incident, she found three girls in a toilet on the second floor (where Class 4 is situated) and took their ID cards as part of routine disciplinary action, without any verbal exchange.
- The suicide note did not indicate any instigation or specific misconduct by the petitioner.
- The petitioner had been granted bail on 28 March 2024, based on the allegations in the suicide note and statements of other students.
- It was further argued that the FIR was registered and arrest made solely based on the suicide note without preliminary inquiry or credible evidence.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan & Another, AIR 2021 SC 4764, to assert that no prima facie case of abetment was made out.
State’s Response:
The State, represented by its panel lawyer, opposed the petition, arguing:
- Material on record, including statements under Section 161 CrPC, reflected that the petitioner’s conduct caused mental trauma to students.
- The FIR and charge-sheet indicated a cognizable offence.
- The deceased reportedly became ill and uncomfortable after returning home from school on the day of the incident and subsequently took her life.
High Court’s Analysis:
The Division Bench observed:
- At the stage of considering a quashing petition, only the prosecution’s version must be examined; the defence of the accused cannot be adjudicated.
- There existed prima facie material to proceed, and any further determination required trial-level evidence.
- The Court cited F.C. Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1988) 1 SCC 608, and emphasized the importance of protecting the dignity and rights of children under Article 21 of the Constitution and international conventions.
The Court concluded that the allegations required trial and refused to quash the FIR and charge-sheet, dismissing the petition.
Supreme Court Proceedings and Final Decision:
- On 6 September 2024, a two-judge bench issued notice and stayed further proceedings pending adjudication.
- On 9 April 2025, the petitioner was granted time to file a rejoinder affidavit.
- On 29 April 2025, the Supreme Court bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition, stating, “Having considered the contentions made across the Bar, we do not find any reason to grant Special Leave to Appeal.”
- However the Court clarified that all contentions of the petitioner were left open for trial.
