A teacher may impose corporal punishment for discipline if done with a bona fide intent, provided no malicious intent is present.

ORDER :

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

This is a petition filed under 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the accused in Crime No.585 of 2019 of Vadakkencherry Police Station, which is pending as S.C. No.577/2023 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Special Court), Palakkad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 324 IPC and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2015.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 16.09.2019, at about 10 a.m., while the victim who was a 5^th standard student in Mambad CAUP School, along with other students in the class were engaged in attacking each other, the accused who was their teacher intervened with a cane and beat the children who were engaged in the clash, on their legs.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being a responsible teacher was only performing his duty to restrain the students who were attacking each other using sticks, in the process of maintaining discipline and that there was absolutely no intention for him to hurt the students. Therefore he prayed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The extent to which a teacher could lawfully inflict corporal punishment on a student under his control was dealt with by this court in some decisions. In the decision in K.A. Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala 2005(2) KLT 72 this court held in paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 as follows :

3. The reporting of instances, similar to the facts stated above, are rare. Often, when such instances are brought to the notice of the parents or others, they are not taken-seriously, as a teacher has an implied consent or authority to maintain the school discipline and also to train a student based on the Rules of a school. When a student do not behave properly or act according to the Rules of a school, and if the teacher chastise him, on a bona fide intention, by giving him a corporal punishment for improving his character and conduct, the Court has to ascertain whether the said act of the teacher was bona fide or not. If it is found that he had acted with a good intention, only to improve the student, it may not normally be brought under the penal provisions of the Code.

4. Ss.88 and 89 I.P.C. are the relevant provisions to the facts of this case and hence I reproduce them below:

"88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit:-

Nothing which is not intended to cause death, 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 any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian:-

Nothing which is 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: Provisos- Provided: Firstly That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death or to the attempting to cause death; Secondly That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity;

Thirdly That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or