The ORISSA Superior Court annuls the criminal case against the school teacher, but asks him to pay ₹ 1 LAKH of compensation to the parents

He ORISSA SUPERIOR COURT He has reiterated that the ‘corporal punishment’ by a school teacher about a student in order to discipline him cannot be equivalent to a low crime Section 82 of the Youth Justice Law (care and protection), 2015 (‘The act’).

However, the single bank of Judge Sibo Sankar Mishra He acknowledged the pain of the parents for the loss of lives of his son and ordered the petitioner-mam for a compensation amount of ₹ 1 Lakh to the deceased’s family. The court observed –

“This court is alive with the fact that a young life has been lost, and no amount of compensation would compensate for the loss of a child. Although medical evidence denies any direct guilt of the petitioner, it is the duty of the State to ensure that students who reside in government schools and shelters receive adequate medical care and a safe environment. “

Case history

On 23.10.2019, the petitioner-maestro supposedly imposed a disciplinary punishment to the deceased student when instructing him to make 300 squats. Later, the deceased complained about physical discomfort to his family, but did not reveal any detail of the incident. Subsequently, his health deteriorated on 28.10.2019, which led to his admission to the hospital and, ultimately, died on 02.11.2019.

At the end of the investigation, the charging sheet appeared against the petitioner of the low crime commission Section 82 (Corporal punishment) of the act. The subdivisional judicial magistrate (SDJM), Bonai learned of the petitioner on 19.02.2022. By challenging said order of knowledge, the petitioner presented this petition under Section 482, CRPC before the Superior Court.

Court Observations

After reading the FI ‘meningitis’. Surprisingly, no external or internal injuries were found in the body of the deceased and no independent witness also corroborated the accusations against the petitioner. He also saw the delay in the FIR accommodation with suspicion.

The court also stressed that even if the accusation against the petitioner is considered true, it is undeniable that such corporal punishment imposed on the deceased only in the course of its official employment and, therefore, sanction low CRPC section 197 It was required to be obtained to process it. However, such a sanction was not obtained.

As for the low crime commission Section 82 The law is concerned, the court was based on the judgment of the Superior Court of Kerala in Dhaness Kumar v. Kerala and Ors state. (2024) that interpreted the definition of ‘Child Care Institution’ as provided under Section 2 (21) of the act and is maintained as follows –

“In addition, the law of a teacher who can make a student a” corporal punishment “as defined in Sec.2 (24) of the JJ Law and that Sec.82 of said law makes the corporal punish Open refuge, observation home, special home, security place, specialized adoption agency, etc., and That a school is not included in the definition of the Child Care Institution and, therefore, the act of a teacher in canaring to a student, even if it is another way a corporal punishment, it would be under the Sec.2 (24) of the JJ Law, but it is not a punishable crime according to the Sec.82 of said law… “

Therefore, it was clear that the disciplinary/body punishment imposed by a teacher cannot enter the scope of the crime that has been penalized under section 82. In addition, the court argued that even if the petitioner is considered guilty under section 82, a sentence of a fine of ten thousand rupees would be granted only.

“The minor sentence prescribed under the law could sometimes replace the exemplary cost. Restorative justice could be attended by preventing strong costs to compensate for the victim’s family to mitigate loss. “ Affirmed.

As a result, the Court considered appropriate to grant an ex-grratia amount with a sum of ₹ 1 Lakh to the family of the deceased, which will be paid by the petitioner.

“Modern countries around the world have recognized that the value of the existence of a child exceeds the economic value of the compensation granted in case of death of a child. Most countries allow parents to seek compensation for the loss of the consortium after the death of a child. The amount paid to parents compensates for the loss of love and devotion of the deceased child, as well as care and company. “ noticed.

Although the court annulled the order of knowledge against the petitioner for lack of material against him to hold the criminal responsibility, he granted the department in question to proceed against him departmentally, if necessary.

Case title: Ramesh Chandra Sethi v. Orissa state

No case: CRLMC No. 2879 of 2022

Judgment date: March 4, 2025

Petitioner Lawyer: Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, lawyer

State Lawyer: Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, Addl. Government. Advocate

Citation: 2025 LIVELAW (ORI) 42

Click here to read/download order