Corporal Punishment: Orissa High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against School Teacher But Asks Him To Pay ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Parents
The Orissa High Court has reiterated that 'corporal punishment' by a school teacher upon a student for the purpose of disciplining him cannot amount to an offence under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 ('the Act').However, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra acknowledged the grief of the parents for loss of life of their child and directed...
The Orissa High Court has reiterated that 'corporal punishment' by a school teacher upon a student for the purpose of disciplining him cannot amount to an offence under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 ('the Act').
However, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra acknowledged the grief of the parents for loss of life of their child and directed the petitioner-teacher to pay a compensation amount of ₹1 lakh to the deceased's family. The Court observed –
“This Court is alive to the fact that a young life has been lost, and no amount of compensation would compensate for the loss of a child. Although the medical evidence negates any direct culpability of the petitioner, it is the duty of the State to ensure that students residing in government schools and hostels receive proper medical attention and a safe environment.”
Case Background
On 23.10.2019, the petitioner-teacher allegedly imposed a disciplinary punishment on the deceased-student by instructing him to perform 300 sit-ups. Later, the deceased complained of physical discomfort to his family but did not disclose any details of the incident. Subsequently, his health deteriorated on 28.10.2019, leading to his admission in Hospital and ultimately, he passed away on 02.11.2019.
Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 82 (corporal punishment) of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Bonai took cognizance against the petitioner on 19.02.2022. Impugning such cognizance order, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482, CrPC before the High Court.
Court's Observations
After perusing the FIR, charge-sheet, medical/post-mortem report and statements made by the witnesses, the Court found that the cause of death of the deceased was medically attributed to 'meningitis'. Strikingly, no external or internal injuries were found on the deceased's body and no independent witness also corroborated the allegations against the petitioner. It also viewed the delay in lodging the FIR with suspicion.
The Court also underlined that even if the allegation against the petitioner is taken to be true, it is undeniable that he imposed such corporal punishment upon the deceased only in the course of his official employment and therefore, sanction under Section 197 of CrPC was required to be obtained to prosecute him. However, no such sanction was obtained.
So far as commission of offence under Section 82 of the Act is concerned, the Court relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Dhanesh Kumar v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2024) which interpreted the definition of 'childcare institution' as provided under Section 2(21) of the Act and held as follows –
“Further that, the act of a teacher caning a student is a "corporal punishment" as defined in Sec.2(24) of the the JJ Act and that Sec.82 of the said Act makes corporal punishment, an offence, only if it is committed by a person in charge/an employee of a child care institution. The child care institution has been defined in Sec.2(21) of the JJ Act whereby it defines to mean that Children Home, open shelter, observation home, special home, place of safety, Specialised Adoption Agency, etc, and that a school is not thus included in the definition of child care institution, and therefore the act of a teacher in caning a student, even if it is otherwise a corporal punishment, would come under Sec.2(24) of the JJ Act, but is not a punishable offence as per Sec.82 of the said Act…”
Thus, it was clear that disciplinary/corporal punishment imposed by a teacher cannot come within the ambit of offence that has been penalised under Section 82. Further, the Court held that even if the petitioner is held guilty under Section 82, he would be awarded a sentence of a fine of ten thousand rupees only.
“Lesser sentence prescribed under the law sometimes could be replaced exemplary cost. Restorative justice could be served by imposing heavy costs to compensate the victim's family to mitigate loss,” it asserted.
As a result, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant an ex-gratia amount to the tune of ₹1 lakh to the family of the deceased, which shall be paid by the petitioner.
“Modern countries across the globe have acknowledged that the worth of a child's existence much outweighs the economic value of compensation granted in the event of a child's death. Most countries allow parents to seek compensation for loss of consortium following the death of a child. The sum paid to the parents compensates them for the deceased child's loss of love and devotion, as well as care and companionship,” it observed.
Though the Court quashed the cognizance order against the petitioner for lack of material against him to fasten criminal liability, it granted liberty to the concerned Department to proceed against him departmentally, if needed.
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Sethi v. State of Orissa
Case No: CRLMC No. 2879 of 2022
Date of Judgment: March 04, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 42
