A teacher has the authority to administer moderate and reasonable corporal punishment to a student for the purpose of enforcing discipline and correction, provided that the punishment does not cause excessive or unreasonable injury to the student.

ORDER :- This is rather an unusual case in the sense that rarely such an offence is brought before the criminal courts. P.W.1 was a school boy, aged about 15 years, studying in the III form in the Board High School, Tiruchengode. The petitioner who happened to be a teacher was in charge of the class in which P.W.1 was studying. The evidence shows that, on 4-2-1960, the petitioner asked P.W.1 to show the quarterly progress report relating to him to his parent, and, in token of having shown it, to get the signature of his father. The boy returned, not with the signature of his lather but with a thumb impression on the progress report which, he represented, was that of his mother.

Both the Courts below have now found that this was an untruth, as the thumb impression which the progress report bore was that of someone else and not that of P.W.1s mother. Evidently, suspecting that the thumb impression was not genuine, the petitioner got excited and beat P.W.1 on the right palm with a stick. P.W.1 did not cry, and so, that is the prosecution case, the petitioner beat him again, asking why he did not cry. As a result, the boy sustained three injuries, two of them are said to be superficial. The other injury was a contusion on the back of P.W.1, which was 6" in length and 1/2" in width. It may be mentioned that, although the occurrence took place on 4-2-1960, the wound certificate was actually issued only on the 10th and the complaint was filed on 11-3-1960.

The lower appellate Court recognised that the petitioner, having regard to the fact that he was a teacher, could be taken to have the authority to administer to his pupil a moderate and reasonable punishment with a view to correct him. But the lower appellate Court thought that the injury on the back was 6" in length and 21/2" in width and that such injury was in excess of the authority of the petitioner. It is now pointed out that the lower appellate Court made a mistake in assuming that the breadth of this injury was 2 1/2" while, according to the wound certificate it was only 1/2" in breadth. On the assumption that the injury on the back measured 6" in length and 2 1/2" in breadth, the lower Court observed:-

"I would have been inclined to hold that the corporal punishment meted out to him was only moderate and reasonable. But the presence of that contusion with stick marks 6" long and 21/2" wide clearly shows with what amount of force that blow had been inflicted, for unless that blow had been inflicted with more than the usual amount of force, it would not have resulted in a weal so long and so broad."

2. Had the lower appellate Court not laboured under a mistake as to the precise breadth of the contusion on the back, probably it would have come to a different conclusion on its own reasoning with regard to the other injuries sustained by P.W.1.

3. Apart from that, it appears to be recognised that a person in the position of a teacher or a college principal will for the purpose of enforcing discipline and correction have authority to impose corporal punishment with impunity provided the corporal punishment inflicted is moderate and reasonable. In Sankunni v. Venkataramani, 42 Mad LJ 460 : (AIR 1922 Mad 200) a college student claimed a considerable sum of money by way of damages against a principal of a college, who was alleged to have inflicted two smacks on him with his hand, on a finding that the plaintiff was guilty of a breach of school discipline, in that he was shaking a reversible desk which was in a rickety condition. The trial Court awarded damages. The principal having appealed, a Division Bench of this Court had to consider the liability of the principal or the college for the corporal punishment meted out to the plaintiff by him. After an elaborate consideration of the law in respect of the matter, Venkatasubba Rao. J., summed up the position thus:

"It follows, therefore, that for purposes of correction the school Master may inflict a moderate and reasonable corpo