Orissa High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Teacher in Juvenile Justice Act Case: "No Evidence Linking Disciplinary Action to Student’s Death"
Kiran Raj
The Orissa High Court, Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, quashed criminal proceedings against a teacher accused under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The petitioner had sought relief under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Bonai, which had taken cognizance of the offence. The court found that "medical records attribute the cause of death to meningitis, and no external or internal injuries were found on the deceased's body."
The court further noted that no independent witnesses had corroborated the prosecution’s allegations and that the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) raised doubts regarding the veracity of the case. The order recorded, "No independent witness has corroborated the allegations against the petitioner, and the delay in lodging the FIR raises serious doubts about the veracity and motive behind the allegations."
The case originated from an FIR registered at Bonai Police Station on November 8, 2019, by the informant, Mangal Bhumij, whose son, Murali Bhumij, a student of R.D.D. High School, Bonaigarh, passed away on November 2, 2019. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, a teacher and NCC in-charge at the school, had subjected the student to corporal punishment on October 23, 2019, instructing him to perform 300 sit-ups as a disciplinary measure. The student reportedly experienced physical discomfort but did not disclose the incident to his family. His health deteriorated, leading to hospitalization and subsequent death.
The investigation culminated in the filing of a charge sheet (C.S. No. 155 of 2020) under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which addresses corporal punishment by individuals employed in child care institutions. The SDJM, Bonai, took cognizance of the offence on February 19, 2022. Section 82 of the Act states, "Any person in charge of or employed in a child care institution, who subjects a child to corporal punishment with the aim of disciplining the child, shall be liable, on the first conviction, to a fine of ten thousand rupees and for every subsequent offence, shall be liable for imprisonment which may extend to three months or fine or with both."
The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the grounds that the student’s cause of death was meningitis, a natural disease unrelated to external trauma. The post-mortem report and medical opinion confirmed the absence of injuries. Statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code from school staff and hostel inmates did not support the prosecution’s version of events.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no causal link between the alleged disciplinary action and the student’s death. The defense submitted that "Meningitis is a natural disease. Independent witnesses' statements do not support the prosecution case." The counsel further pointed out that the FIR was lodged six days after the student’s death, suggesting an afterthought and an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner.
The State opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner had subjected a minor to corporal punishment, forming the basis of the charge under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Additional Government Advocate argued that "the severity of the disciplinary measure should be viewed in light of child protection laws," and that the veracity of the allegations was a matter to be determined at trial.
The court examined the charge sheet, medical reports, and witness statements. It found that "the medical records attribute the cause of death to meningitis, and no external or internal injuries were found on the deceased's body." The court also recorded that no independent witnesses had corroborated the allegations against the petitioner and that the FIR’s delayed filing cast doubts on the prosecution’s case.
The court examined whether the prosecution had obtained the mandatory sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code before proceeding against the petitioner, given that he was discharging his official duty. It recorded, "The mandatory sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was not obtained before prosecuting the petitioner, despite the fact that the alleged act, even if true, was committed in the course of official function/duty of the petitioner."
The judgment referenced the Kerala High Court’s decision in Dhanesh Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors., where it was held that allegations of corporal punishment do not constitute a penal offence unless they involve disproportionate force. The court quoted, "The Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court have held in a catena of rulings that teachers have the inherent right to discipline the students. Proportionate punishments by way of caning a student by itself cannot be said to constitute a penal offence, unless the teacher has used unfair and disproportionate force."
The judgment further recorded that schools do not fall within the definition of "child care institutions" under the Juvenile Justice Act. It stated, "Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice Act makes corporal punishment an offence only if it is committed by a person in charge or an employee of a child care institution. A school is not included in the definition of a child care institution under Section 2(21) of the Act."
The court also examined the principle of proportionality in sentencing and deterrence in disciplinary actions. It observed that while negligence leading to a student’s death was a grave matter, the prescribed punishment under Section 82 of the Act was a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the first offence, with a maximum imprisonment of three months for subsequent offences. The judgment recorded, "Punishment should be adequate to serve the cause of justice. The idea aligns with legal principles that suffice fairness, deterrence, and rehabilitation rather than mere retribution."
The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, stating that "continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law." It held that the ingredients of Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice Act were not prima facie satisfied.
While granting relief to the petitioner, the court directed the petitioner to pay an ex gratia compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the deceased student’s family. The order recorded, "The compensation is not in any manner to be construed as an acknowledgment of guilt of the petitioner but as an ex-gratia relief to the bereaved family." The petitioner’s counsel consented to the compensation order, stating that the petitioner would comply without prejudice.
The court left it open for the Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner if deemed necessary. The judgment stated, "It is open for the Department to proceed against him departmentally, if so advised. However, it’s made clear that the observation made in this judgment shall not influence the departmental proceeding."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Tirth Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For the Respondent: Bibekananda Nayak, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Sethi v. State of Orissa
Case Number: CRLMC No. 2879 of 2022
Bench: Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
[Read/Download order]
