The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal challenging the Judgment and conviction dated 16.04.2019 passed by the learned Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji.
The Appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 2(m)(i) punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant was working as a teacher in a school. The victim in the present case had consumed water from the bottle of another student and therefore, the Appellant, being the teacher of the class, tried to correct the victim by saying that she should bring sufficient water for herself in her own bottle and should not consume the water from the bottles of other students.
Allegations were made against the Appellant in connection with corporal punishment in the school. The learned Children's Court vide its impugned Judgment dated 16.04.2019 framed two points and answered them in the affirmative. Accordingly, Appellant/Accused was convicted and sentenced.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant was working as a teacher in the school and being a teacher, she had every authority to correct a student committing a mistake or not maintaining discipline. The victims in the present matter were the students in the school and if the teacher tried to correct them for their mistakes, the same cannot be construed as an offence under the IPC or under the Goa Children's Act for the simple reason that there is no such men's rea.
The Counsel further argued that even if some physical force is used which is not going to cause any harm or injury to the child or even insult, only with an intention to correct such child for the mistake committed, would not constitute an offence
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsels for the Respondent argued that if there is any physical abuse on the part of a teacher with a grudge in mind against a particular student, such an act would certainly fall within the parameters of Section 8(2) of Goa Children's Act as well as Section 323 or 324 of IPC. Both the victims disclosed that they were assaulted with a stick on their hands.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the purpose of the Goa Children's Act is mainly to protect the child from any abuse including physical, psychological or otherwise. The Court observed that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that the accused used any stick or ruler to assault PW1 and PW2. Depositions of PW1 and PW2 are contrary to each other in material aspects. Both these witnesses tried to improvise only to cover their own mistakes and mischief in school, which normally a child intends to do.
The Court observed that even if it is considered that the teacher/accused used some physical force, it was only to correct the child, with no malafide or other intentions.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the punishment imposed on the Appellant/Accused needs to be quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Ms. Rekha @ Vidhila Faldessai v State
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Bharat P. Deshpande
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Arun de Sa and Mr Kyle D'Souza
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Pravin Faldessai
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
