Cruelty not reform: Subjecting child to corporal punishment can’t be part of education: Chhattisgarh High Court

Bilaspur: It is cruel to subject a child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education, the Chhattisgarh High Court observed while dismissing a petition filed by a woman teacher accused of abetting the suicide of student.

An FIR was lodged at Manipur police station in February against Sister Mercy alias Elizabeth Jose (43), a teacher of Carmel Convent School in Ambikapur in Surguja District, for allegedly abetting the suicide of a girl student of Class VI, the petitioner’s lawyer Rajat Agrawal said.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal made the observation while dismissing Jose’s petition seeking to quash FIR and chargesheet in the abetment of suicide case.

In its order of July 29, the HC bench said “imposition of corporal punishment on the child is not in consonance with his right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.

“On a larger canvass right to life includes all that which gives meaning to life and makes it wholesome and worth living. It means something more than survival or animal existence. Right to life enshrined in Article 21 also embraces any aspect of life which makes it dignified,” the HC said.

“Being small does not make a child a less human being than a grown up…It is cruel to subject the child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education. A child being a precious national resource is to be nurtured and attended with tenderness and care and not with cruelty. Subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him cannot be part of education,” the HC order further stated.

Jose was arrested after the suicide note left behind by the child named her.

The petitioner’s lawyer said Jose had, on the day of the incident, merely admonished the student and taken her ID card as per the usual disciplinary procedure followed in the school.

“The petitioner never had any intention to abet the suicide of the student. Police, without conducting any preliminary inquiry, registered an FIR against the petitioner based solely on the basis of the suicide note,” Jose’s counsel submitted.

The state counsel, however, opposed the plea to quash the chargesheet and FIR arguing the evidence of the classmates of the deceased recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) showed the conduct of the petitioner was so harsh that students were in mental trauma.

Dismissing the petition, the HC said it could not delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced.

“The disputed questions of facts in the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused,” the HC said.

The court does not find any ground to quash the chargesheet and FIR against the petitioner, it said.