Teacher scolding, inflicting reasonable punishment on students not an offence under Section 324 IPC: Bombay High Court
The Court said that if teachers were under fear of such allegations for trivial matters, it would be difficult to maintain discipline in school.
Bombay High court at Goa
Bombay High court at Goa
Satyendra Wankhade
Published on :
3 Feb, 2023, 8:53 pm
3 min read
The Bombay High Court at Goa on Thursday said that teachers scolding students and inflicting reasonable punishment on them would not attract the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or under the Goa Children's Act of 2003 [Rekha Faldessai vs State of Goa].
Justice Bharat P Deshpande said that students go to school not only to be taught but also to learn other aspects of life including discipline, and if teachers are under fear of such allegations for trivial matters, it would be difficult to maintain discipline in school.
"The purpose of the school is not only to teach the academic subjects, but to prepare such student in all aspects of life so that in future he would be a person of good behaviour and nature. The teachers are respected in the society at the most. They are the backbone of our education system. If the teachers are under fear of such allegations for trivial matters and more specifically while correcting children, it would be difficult for conducting schools thereby giving proper education and more specifically maintaining discipline," the single-judge said.
It, therefore, set aside the conviction of a teacher who was accused of beating two students.
The appeal was filed by a teacher against an order of a Children's Court convicting her for the offences punishable under Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of IPC and Section 2(m)(i) (child abuse) punishable under Section 8(2) of Goa Children's Act. She was fined ₹1,10,000 and was sentenced to a day in prison.
The complaint against her was registered by the father of two children who alleged that she had beaten them with a ruler after one of them drank from another child's water bottle.
Advocate Arun De Sa for the appellant contended that as a teacher, the appellant had every authority to correct a student who does not maintain discipline. According to him, absence of mens rea meant that the act of the appellant could not be construed as an offence.
He stated that the case was peculiar as no ruler as alleged was recovered and no specific injuries were found on the students.
Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai agreed that a teacher's acts in school to maintain discipline among students would not constitute an offence.
However, he stated that if there was any physical abuse on the teacher's part with a grudge, the act would fall within the parameters of of section 8(2) of Goa Children's Act as well as Sections 323 or 324 of IPC and stated that the depositions of the children have to be evaluated.
De Sa countered the same, stating that the definition of physical and psychological abuse as found in Goa Children's Act was too vague and could not be strictly applied to a matter, especially to the one at hand.
The Court ruled that the evidence of the complainant and the children could not be believed as they contradicted each other on material particulars.
It said that if the teacher even scolded them for not having carried sufficient water, it would not constitute an offence.
"This incident is quite normal in a primary school. In order to discipline the students and to inculcate good habits, the teacher is bound to act accordingly and sometimes be a bit harsh," the Court added.
Consequently, it ruled that benefits of the provisions of Sections 88 (act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit) and 89 (act done in good faith for benefit of child) of IPC would extend to the teacher.
"Only because teacher scolded a student or even inflicted some reasonable punishment, would not in any manner constitute offence as it has to be kept in mind that such measures were taken by the teacher only and only for the purpose of maintaining the discipline of the school and to correct a child who is misbehaving or committing mischief which is detrimental to the discipline of the school and affecting other students," the Court said.
Further, for the offences under Goa Children's Act, the Court underlined that the proper procedure would be to approach the competent authority who after conducting necessary inquiry as contemplated under Section 14, would take necessary action and inform the police if a complaint is to be registered.
"If such procedure is followed, it would avoid and restrict the matters which are directly filed before the Children's Court specifically with regard to such allegations of physical abuse by the teacher only with an intent to correct a child and to discipline," it added.
Hence, the Court set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the accused of all charges levelled against her.
[Read Judgment]
Attachment
Rekha Faldessai vs State of Goa.pdf
Preview
Bombay High CourtGoa BenchCorporal punishmentSection 324 IPC
