Corporal punishment by a teacher does not attract penal provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act if performed in a non-child care institution, and necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. must be obtained before prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 19.02.2022 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Bonai in G.R. Case No.524 of 2019, arising out of Bonai P.S. Case No.130 of 2019, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been taken against him.

2. The case originates from an FIR No.130 of 2019, registered at Bonai Police Station on 08.11.2019, lodged by the informant, Mangal Bhumij, alleging that his son, Murali Bhumij, a student at R.D.D. High School, Bonaigarh, succumbed to death, allegedly exacerbated by the disciplinary action taken by the petitioner in his capacity as an NCC in-charge and teacher at the said School.

3. As per the prosecution, on 23.10.2019, the petitioner allegedly imposed a disciplinary punishment on the deceased by instructing him to perform 300 sit-ups. Subsequently, the deceased complained of physical discomfort to his family but did not disclose any details of the incident. His health deteriorated on 28.10.2019, leading to his admission to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Bonaigarh, and later referred to M.K.C.G. Medical College, Burla, where he ultimately passed away on 02.11.2019.

4. The investigation culminated in the filing of charge sheet (C.S. No.155 of 2020) under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice Act, with the learned SDJM, Bonai taking cognizance of the offence on 19.02.2022. Section 82 of the Act, talks about Corporal punishment, which reads thus:

“Any person in-charge of or employed in a child care institution, who subjects a child to corporal punishment with the aim of disciplining the child, shall be liable, on the first conviction, to a fine of ten thousand rupees and for every subsequent offence, shall be liable for imprisonment which may extend to three months or fine or with both.

(2) If a person employed in an institution referred to in sub-section (1), is convicted of an offence under that sub- section, such person shall also be liable for dismissal from service, and shall also be debarred from working directly with children thereafter.

(3) In case, where any corporal punishment is reported in an institution referred to in sub-section (1) and the management of such institution does not cooperate with any inquiry or comply with the orders of the Committee or the Board or court or State Government, the person in-charge of the management of the institution shall be liable for punishment with imprisonment for a term not less than three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court, contending that the case against him is devoid of merit legally and factually.

5. During the course of investigation, the post-mortem report, as well as the medical opinion, attributed the cause of death to meningitis, a natural disease unrelated to external trauma. There was no internal or external injuries found on the body at the time of autopsy. Further, statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. from various staff members and hostel inmates did not support the prosecution's version of events.

6. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there was even no cursury link between the alleged disciplinary action and the student's death. Meningitis is a natural disease. Independent witnesses' statements do not support t