Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Jaya W/o Anil Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 819 of 2015
Decided On : 24-01-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 397 r/w 401 and 227 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 324 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 23 - Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 - Article 19 - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Intention- Whether Proved – Question of framing charges - challenging charge framed against her - Revision petitioner/accused was class teacher of Standard VI in DDS High School - De facto complainant/3rd respondent was a student in same class. The 4th respondent is his father - Prosecution case in short is that at the class room, the revision petitioner, due to enmity towards 3rd respondent for the delay in taking out textbook and with the intention to cause hurt, attempted to beat him with a cane on the top of his right elbow, but when he suddenly turned his face up, butt of the same touched his right eye corneal causing abrasion.
Finding of the court :
It is trite that the words 'not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of Court to facts of case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution - If evidence, which the prosecution proposed to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, before it is challenged in cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused has committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial - To constitute an offence of voluntarily causing hurt, there must be complete correspondence between the result and the intention or the knowledge or belief of the person who caused the said hurt. S.23 of the JJ Act will be attracted when unnecessary mental or physical suffering is caused by a person in charge of control over the child by assaulting, abandoning, exposing or wilfully neglecting the child or by causing such act to be done - There was no bleeding or pain. He was immediately taken to Taluk Hospital, North Paravur and first aid treatment was given and he was allowed to go to his house on that day along with his mother who was present in the hospital. However, again on the next day at 11.30 p.m. he was voluntarily brought to Taluk Hospital, North Paravur by his parents. Injury sustained was trivial in nature - Revision petitioner cannot be said to be with malicious intention to cause hurt on the 3rd respondent. On the contrary, facts disclose that she exercised her authority reasonably and in good faith - Hence, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the revision petitioner.
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal revision petition has been filed by the sole accused in S.C. No. 692/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (for short, the Court below) u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) challenging Annexure A4 charge framed against her.
2. The revision petitioner/accused was the class teacher of the Standard VI in DDS High School, Karimbadam, Paravur. The de facto complainant/3rd respondent was a student in the same class. The 4th respondent is his father. The prosecution case in short is that on 27.6.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. at the class room, the revision petitioner, due to enmity towards 3rd respondent for the delay in taking out textbook and with the intention to cause hurt, attempted to beat him with a cane on the top of his right elbow, but when he suddenly turned his face up, the butt of the same touched his right eye corneal causing abrasion and, thus, committed the offences punishable u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) and S.23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the JJ Act).
3. The revision petitioner appeared at the Court below. She was released on bail. She argued for discharge u/s 227 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against her. The Court below upon consideration of the records of the case and after hearing the submission of the revision petitioner and the prosecution formed the opinion that there was ground for presuming that the revision petitioner has committed the offence and, accordingly, framed charge against her u/s 324 of the IPC and S.23 of the JJ Act. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner preferred this revision.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a close reading of the FIR, FIS, statement of the witnesses and the documents on record would reveal that there are no sufficient ground for proceeding against the revision petitioner. The counsel further submitted that there is not even a prima-facie case, even after the final report, is made out by the prosecution, for accusing the revision petitioner with the offence u/s 324 of IPC and S.23 of JJ Act. The court below ought to have discharged the revision petitioner u/s 227 of Cr.P.C. submitted the counsel.
6. Chapter XVIII of the Code lays down the procedure for trial before the Court of Sessions, pursuant to an order of commitment under S.209 of the Code. S.227 contemplates the circumstances whereunder there could be a discharge of an accused at a stage anterior in point of time to framing of charge under S. 228. It provides that upon consideration of the record of the case, the documents submitted with the police report and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, the Court is expected, nay bound to decide, whether there is ‘sufficient ground’ to proceed against the accused and as a consequence thereof, either discharge the accused or proceed to frame charge against him.
7. It is trite that the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Court to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Court has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima-facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima-facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. A prima-facie case against the accused is said to be made out when the probative value of the evidence on all the essential elements in the charge taken as a whole is such that it is sufficient to induce the Court to believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to such essential elements or t
Point of Law : The Judge while considering question of framing charges under S.227 of Cr.P.C. has undoubted power to sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case and the absence of malicious intention to cause hurt in the context of framing charges under S.324 IPC and S....
Corporal punishment by a teacher may not constitute an offence if it is performed with a bona fide intention to maintain discipline, as established under relevant IPC and JJ Act provisions.
Teachers can impose reasonable discipline, provided there is no malice or excessive force. Such actions fall under implied authority granted by parents.
A teacher may impose reasonable corporal punishment in good faith for discipline without constituting criminal liability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimony, medical evidence, and lack of glaring inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence to determine ....
Intent and knowledge regarding the commission of offences under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from actions and circumstances, regardless of the nature or extent of actual injuries inflicted.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
