JUDGMENT :

1. This case was heard on 25.9.2018 and today is fixed for delivery of orders.

2. Heard Mr. A. Khaleque, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Education Department for respondent No. 1; Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3; and Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

3. None has appeared for respondent No. 4.

4. By filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for prosecution and punishment of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the death of his minor son and also seeks a direction for payment of compensation for the said death.

5. According to the petitioner, his son, Mousam Raj Mahanta was about 11 years of age at the relevant point of time and he was a student of Class-VI in Saraswati Shiksha Niketan, Mirza, i.e., respondent No. 2 (School), of which respondent No. 3 was the Vice Principal and respondent No. 4 was the computer teacher.

6. On 25.5.2010, in the afternoon, petitioner's son came back home from school limping and weeping. On being enquired into, he stated that computer teacher of the school, i.e., respondent No. 4 had severely beaten him on the back side of his left leg, which was found swollen.

7. Though the son was taken to a local doctor, his condition did not improve, rather worsened. On 1.6.2010, petitioner had to get his son admitted in the GNRC hospital, Dispur, Guwahati, where he expired on 7.6.2010.

8. In the meanwhile, petitioner had approached the Vice-Principal of the school, i.e., respondent No. 3, who not only admitted beating up of petitioner's son by respondent No. 4, but also justified the same. He additionally stated that he also gave his son two lathi blows.

9. Petitioner's brother, Jayanta Mahanta lodged first information before the Palashbari Police Station, which was registered as Palashbari PS Case No. 128 of 2010, corresponding to GR Case No. 4130 of 2010. Police investigated the matter and, thereafter, submitted charge sheet against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under section 325/34/302 of the Penal Code, 1860. The case was pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M). It was in the above factual backdrop that the present writ petition came to be filed.

10. Notice in this case was issued on 8.6.2012.

11. Thereafter, the case was admitted for hearing on 20.11.2012.

12. In the hearing which took place on 22.11.2016, it was noted that the charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No. 171/2010 was filed on 30.9.2010 against the accused, Prasun Goswami (respondent No. 3) and absconder, Ajay Singh (respondent No. 4). Learned standing counsel for the Education Department was directed to inform the court as to what action was taken by the Education Department on the aforesaid allegation against respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4. This court observed that the allegation, prima facie, being very serious, leading to death of a young student because of corporal punishment, action of the school authority ought not have been taken lightly by the Education Department; it was expected that appropriate action should have been taken by the Education Department. Court also wanted to know from the learned standing counsel for the Education Department, as to what exercise was taken by the Education Department for providing compensation for the death of a young student.

13. In the hearing which took place on 29.11.2016, record of GR Case No. 4130 of 2010 was called for. In the subsequent hearing on 20.12.2016, learned counsel who had appeared for respondent No. 2, i.e., Saraswati Shiksha Niketan, i.e., the school, was directed to obtain instructions as to the quantum of compensation, which, the respondent No. 2 was agreeable to pay to the parents of the deceased, an eleven-year old child.

14. In the meanwhile, petitioner filed an affidavit on 5.9.2017 to bring on record a copy of enquiry report dated 16.9.2010, submitted by Sri Krishna Gobinda