Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Sethi vs State Of Orissa ....... Opposite Party on 4 March, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2879 of 2022
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Ramesh Chandra Sethi ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Bibekananda Nayak,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:05.02.2025 : Date of Judgment:04.03.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the prosecution
case. Even the FIR was lodged six days after the student's death,
indicating an afterthought and possible ulterior motive to implicate
the petitioner. The petitioner was discharging his official duty, and
no prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was obtained
before proceeding against him.
7. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the opposite party-State, opposes the petition, arguing that the
petitioner subjected a minor to corporal punishment, which forms
the basis of the charge under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice
Act. The severity of the disciplinary measure should be viewed in
light of child protection laws. The veracity of the allegations is a
matter of trial, and the Court should not interfere at this stage.
8. Upon reviewing the FIR, charge sheet, medical reports, and
witnesses statements, this Court finds that the medical records
attribute the cause of death to meningitis, and no external or
internal injuries were found on the deceased's body. No
independent witness has corroborated the allegations against the
petitioner, and the delay in lodging the FIR raises serious doubts
about the veracity and motive behind the allegations.
9. The mandatory sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was
not obtained before prosecuting the petitioner, despite the fact that
the alleged act, even if true, was committed in the course of
official function/duty of the petitioner. In light of the above, the
ingredients of Section 82 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are not prima facie satisfied, and
continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process
of law. In Dhanesh Kumar vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
MANU/KE/4564/2024 the High Court of Kerala referred to an
earlier decision and held thus:
"9. In Jeeji A.V. vs. State of Kerala [2019 KHC 830] this Court
made the following observation.
"3. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the
abovesaid allegations are false and frivolous, and that
though the incident had happened 30.9.2019 the FIS and
the crime have been lodged as late as on 7.10.2019, and the
long delay in this regard is clearly indicative of the fact that
the allegation therein are the product of afterthought and
fabrication, and the delay in this regard would vitiate the
impugned criminal proceedings. Further that, the Apex
Court and various High Courts including this Court has
held in a catena of rulings that teachers have the inherent
right to discipline the students proportionate punishments
by way of caning a student by itself cannot be said to
constitute a penal offence, unless the teacher has used
unfair and disproportionate force, which is not called for in
the given situation. Further that, the act of a teacher caning
a student is a "corporeal punishment" as defined in
Sec.2(24) of the the JJ Act and that Sec.82 of the said Act
makes corporeal punishment, an offence, only if it is
committed by a person in charge/an employee of a child
care institution. The child care institution has been defined
in Sec.2(21) of the JJ Act whereby it defines to mean that
Children Home, open shelter, observation home, special
home, place of safety, Specialised Adoption Agency, etc,
and that a school is not thus included in the definition of
child care institution, and therefore the act of a teacher in
caning a student, even if it is otherwise a corporeal
punishment, would come under Sec.2(24) of the JJ Act, but
is not a punishable offence as per Sec.82 of the said Act,
and that the Parliament has specifically and consciously
taken the legislative policy option that act of corporeal
punishment imposed by a teacher on a student, is taken
outside the ambit of an offence as per Sec.82 of the JJ Act.
Since that is the position, such an act of corporeal
punishment imposed by a teacher on a student cannot be
indirectly made an offence by circuitous method of placing
reliance on Sec.75 of the said Act, and if that be so, it would
amount to indirectly doing something which is directly
prohibited by the Parliament. Therefore, the alleged act of
corporeal punishment imposed by a teacher on the student
of the said school, even if otherwise satisfies the definition
of corporeal punishment as per Sec.2(24) of the JJ Act, will
not be a punishable offence either as per Sec.82 of the JJ
Act, or any other provisions of the JJ Act, including Sec.75
thereof. Therefore the charging of offence as per Sec.75 of
the JJ Act in the instant case, is illegal and ultra vires, as
the admitted facts will not disclose any offence. Further
that, the only allegation against the petitioner is that, he
had acted as a silent spectator when A1 had caned the boy.
Accordingly it is urged that the custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is not necessary, and that this court may grant
anticipatory bail.""
10. Punishment should be adequate to serve the cause of
justice. The idea aligns with the legal principles that suffice
fairness, deterrence and rehabilitation rather than mere
retribution. Justice is well served if the purpose of justice is
achieved, but not when the punishment is harsh. The alleged
negligence of the petitioner which cost the life of the son of the
informant can't be compensated. But the petitioner even if
convicted for the offence he is charged with, i.e., under Section
82 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, would be awarded a sentence of a fine of ten thousand
rupees only and for every subsequent offence, shall be liable for
imprisonment which may extend to three months or fine or with
both. Lesser sentence prescribed under the law sometimes could
be replaced exemplary cost. Restorative justice could be served
by imposing heavy costs to compensate the victim's family to
mitigate loss.
11. This Court is alive to the fact that a young life has been
lost, and no amount of compensation would compensate for the
loss of a child. Although the medical evidence negates any direct
culpability of the petitioner, it is the duty of the State to ensure
that students residing in government schools and hostels receive
proper medical attention and a safe environment. Modern
countries across the globe have acknowledged that the worth of a
child's existence much outweighs the economic value of
compensation granted in the event of a child's death. Most
countries allow parents to seek compensation for loss of
consortium following the death of a child. The sum paid to the
parents compensates them for the deceased child's loss of love
and devotion, as well as care and companionship. In this regard,
the Court deems it appropriate to provide a compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) to the family of the deceased
student to be paid by the petitioner. The compensation is not in
any manner to be construed as an acknowledgment of guilt of the
petitioner but as an ex-gratia relief to the bereaved family. Mr.
T.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
consented to the compensation order and submitted that his client
would pay the compensation amount to the informant without
prejudice.
12. On merits, the petitioner although succeeds as there is no
material available to establish criminal liability, but from the
facts emanating from the record, it's apparent that the incident
has happened. Therefore, it is open for the Department to proceed
against him departmentally, if so advised. However, it's made
clear that the observation made in this judgment shall not
influence the departmental proceeding.
13. With the above observation and direction, the CRLMC is
disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 10-Mar-2025 19:47:07 The 4th day of March, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty
