Chhattisgarh High Court: In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ.*, and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., stated that it was evident that imposition of corporal punishment on the child was not in consonance with his right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court stated that corporal punishment was not keeping with child’s dignity. Besides, it was cruel to subject the child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education. Child being a precious national resource was to be nurtured and attended with tenderness and care and not with cruelty. Subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him could not be part of education.
The Court observed that in the instant case, there was a specific allegation against the accused that she had been accused of allegedly abetting the suicide of a student. Therefore, at this stage, averments made in the petition that the allegations levelled against accused was false, cannot be looked into while exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. Thus, the Court did not find any grounds to quash the impugned charge-sheet and the FIR against the accused, as the case was fixed for framing the charges against the accused before the Trial Court on 30-08-2024.
Background
In the present case, an FIR was filed against the petitioner-accused, who was a Christian ‘Nun’ working as a regular teacher in a Convent School. The petitioner was accused of allegedly abetting the suicide of the deceased, a class 6th student, in a school where she was working as a regular teacher. Petitioner had filed an application for grant of regular bail before this Court and vide order dated 28-03-2024, this Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner stated that on the date of the incident, the deceased along with two of her classmates had not attended the last period of the school. They went out of the classroom a few minutes before their teacher arrived and went to the toilets on the second floor, where 4th class was situated. When the accused was on her way to the staff room, she saw some students peeping out of the toilets and rushing back into the toilet upon seeing her. She went to the passage where the toilets were located, when one of the students informed her that three students went to the toilets, including deceased and they had not come out.
The accused went to the toilet and when the door was opened, she found three students therein. One of the students replied that they went inside to clean the soiled cloth of one of the students. The accused being not aware of the student’s identity, took their identity card and subsequently, went to staff room. Further, there were no verbal talks between the accused and students. Accused contended that she had merely admonished the student and took her ID card as per the usual disciplinary procedure and never had any intention to abet the suicide of the student.
The accused contended that she was arrested merely because her name was found in the suicide note of the deceased. It was after the accused had taken away the ID cards, the accompanying two students informed the deceased student, that the accused was ‘dangerous’ and that she would inform the parents of the deceased. It is after listening to them that the deceased student might have got scared because of which she committed suicide. Accused contended that it was amply clear from this statement in the suicide note that none of the acts of the accused had put the deceased into any predicament or anxiety and it was the result of her talk with her co-students and her own hyperactive imagination that she had put herself into a situation out of which death was the only solution.
However, the respondent stated that the evidence of the classmates of the deceased recorded under Section 1611 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 showed that the act and conduct of the accused in the institution, was so harsh that the students were in a mental trauma. Further, as per the FIR, it was apparent that the victim was uncomfortable and fell ill when she went from the school to her house. Thereafter, she committed suicide and left the suicide note.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it was trite law that at the stage of quashing, only the material of the prosecution had to be seen, and it could not delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit. The disputed questions of facts in the case could not be adjudged and adjudicated while exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and only the prima facie prosecution case had to be looked into as it was.
The Court stated that it was also evident that imposition of corporal punishment on the child was not in consonance with his right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. 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 of the Constitution also embraces any aspect of life which makes it dignified. The Court stated that these rights were available to the child, and he could not be deprived of the same just because he was small. Being small does not make him a less human being than a grown up.
The Court stated that corporal punishment was not keeping with child’s dignity. Besides, it was cruel to subject the child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education. Child being a precious national resource was to be nurtured and attended with tenderness and care and not with cruelty. Subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him could not be part of education.
The Court observed that in the instant case, there was a specific allegation against the accused that she had been accused of allegedly abetting the suicide of a student. Therefore, at this stage, averments made in the petition that the allegations levelled against accused was false, cannot be looked into while exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. Thus, the Court did not find any grounds to quash the impugned charge-sheet and the FIR against the accused, as the case was fixed for framing the charges against the accused before the Trial Court on 30-08-2024.
[Sister Mercy v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 6936, decided on 29-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Devershi Thakur and Rajat Agrawal, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 180 of BNSS
