Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bharat P.Deshpande, J.
Rekha – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2019
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Arun De Sa, Advocate, Kyle Dsouza, Advocate, Pravin Faldessai, Advocate
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 324 OF IPC AND SECTION 2(M)(I) PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8(2) OF GOA CHILDREN'S ACT, 2003 - APPELLANT/ACCUSED WAS A TEACHER IN THE SCHOOL AND ALLEGEDLY ASSAULTED TWO VICTIMS WITH A STICK - TRIAL COURT FOUND THE APPELLANT GUILTY AND SENTENCED HER TO PAY FINE AND UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT - APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE CONVICTION - HELD, APPEAL ALLOWED - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE QUASHED - APPELLANT ACQUITTED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a teacher in a school, was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC and Section 2(m)(i) punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. The appellant allegedly assaulted two victims, students of the school, with a stick. The appellant challenged the conviction by filing an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence on record was not sufficient to prove that the appellant had assaulted the victims with a stick. The court also found that the depositions of the victims were contradictory and that they were trying to improvise and exaggerate the facts. The court further found that the appellant was acting in good faith and with the intention to correct the victims, who were misbehaving and committing mischief in the school.
Issues: 1. Whether the alleged act of scolding and correcting a student by a teacher would constitute an offence. 2. Whether the Prosecution succeeded in proving that the Accused assaulted both the victims with a ruler/stick thereby causing injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's actions were covered under Section 89 of IPC, which provides that nothing done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person. The court also held that the provisions of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, provide a specific procedure for dealing with allegations of corporal punishment in schools. The court held that the police should have conducted a preliminary inquiry or directed the complainant to approach the competent authority before registering an FIR.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant/Accused preferred present appeal thereby challenging judgment and conviction in Special Case No.132/2015 dtd.16/4/2019 passed by the learned Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji. The Appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Sec. 2(m)(i) punishable under Sec. 8(2) of Goa Children's Act, 2003. The Appellant was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10, 000.00 in connection with the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 6 months.
2. The Appellant/Accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day and to pay fine of Rs.1, 00, 000.00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 8(2) of Goa Children's Act, 2003.
3. The appeal was admitted on 14/6/2019 and after the records and proceedings were received along with the paper-book, the matter was taken up for final disposal.
4. Heard Mr Arun de Sa appearing with Mr Kyle D'Souza for the Appellant and Mr Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I perused entire record and more specifically the Judgment which is impugned in the present appeal.
6. Mr De Sa submitted that Appellant was working as a teacher in the school and being a teacher, she was having every authority to correct a student who is committing mistakes or even not maintaining discipline. The victims in the present matter were the students in the school and if the teacher tries to correct them for their mistakes and in order to discipline them, cannot be construed as offence under the IPC or under the Goa Children's Act for the simple reason that there is no such mens rea. She submitted that the victim consumed the water from the bottle of another student and therefore, Appellant being the teacher of the class tried to correct the victim by saying that she should bring sufficient water for herself in her own bottle and should not consume the water from the bottles of other students, cannot be construed as an offence at all. He would submit that the parents when admitting their child to the school gives authority to the teachers and the principal of the school to act in accordance for maintaining discipline and to correct the child if required. He would submit that even if some physical force is used which is not going to case any harm or injury to the child or even insult, only with an intention to correct such child for the mistake committed, would not constitute an offence and that too under IPC or under Goa Children's Act. The only intention of the teacher is to maintain discipline and to inculcate good habits in a child/student so that such student would be an asset to the society in future. A disciplined student would always be an asset to the society and in such circumstances, even if the teacher is acting in harsh manner at times, would not constitute any offence, as such action of the teacher would be considered as reasonable for the time being in order to correct the child or the student. Such act would constitute as done by consent in good faith for the child's benefit and with the consent of the guardian.
7. Mr De Sa then would submit that the circumstances in the present matter are peculiar which clearly goes to show that alleged stick or ruler used by the Accused to assault the victim is not at all recovered. No specific injuries are found on the person of the victims.
8. Per contra, Mr Faldessai fairly submitted that the acts of a teacher in the school and for the purpose of keeping discipline amongst the students, would not constitute any offence. However, he would submit that if there is any physical abuse on the part of such teacher with a grudge in mind against a particular student, such act would certainly fall within the parameters of Sec. 8(2) of Goa Children's Act as well as Sec. 323 or 324 of IPC
