A tutor acting bona fide to discipline and correct a student does not commit offence under Section 118(1) BNSS even if cane is used.

O R D E R

(Dated this the 18th day of May, 2026)

The sole accused in Crime No. 62 of 2026 of Kottiyam Police Station filed this Crl.MC under Section 528 BNSS praying for quashing the FIR against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 118(1) of BNSS and Section75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of children) Act 2015.

2. The prosecution case as revealed from the FIR is that the petitioner who was the tuition teacher of the defacto complainant aged 16 on 14.01.2026 at about 6.30 pm caned him for not completing the revision in mathematics and physics subjects.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations leveled against the petitioner are as such believed, the same will not constitute the offences punishable under Section 118(1) BNS an Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. In support of the above argument, he has laid upon the decision of this Court in Sibin S.V v. State of Kerala and another [2026 KHC 1571] as well as the decision in Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1093] 4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. In the decision in Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala (Supra), in para 8 this Court held that, 8. From the above decisions it is clear that the school teacher, in view of his peculiar position, has authority to enforce discipline and correct a pupil, who is put in his charge. When a parent entrusts a child to a teacher, he on his behalf impliedly consents for the teacher to exercise over the student such authority. When a student does not behave properly or act according to the rules of a school, and if the teacher gives 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 or correct the student, he is within his limits.

6. In the instant case also, the allegation is that, the petitioner being the teacher caned the victim who was studying in plus one as he failed to complete the revision in mathematics and physics subjects. Therefore, under no stretch imagination, it can be stated that the petitioner had any intention to inflict any bodily injuries to the defacto complainant. At the same time, the petitioner had acted with good intention, only to improve or correct the student. Moreover, the cane allegedly used for beating the defacto complainant can never be styled as a dangerous weapon, so as to constitute an offence punishable under Section 118(1) of BNSS which is extracted below, for reference :

118 - Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

1. Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub- section (1) of section 122, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both."

7. Since it is revealed that in the instant case, the petitioner had acted in good faith with the intention to enforce discipline in the tuition center and to improve or correct the child, the allegations leveled in the FIR against him do not make out any of the offences as alleged, this Crl.MC is liable to be allowed.