The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a school teacher accused of beating a student with a cane, holding that the alleged act did not attract offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or the Juvenile Justice Act when inflicted as a bona fide measure to enforce discipline without malicious intent.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sibin S.V. v. State of Kerala
- Court: High Court of Kerala
- Bench: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
- Date of Judgment: 3 February 2026
- Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 7868 of 2025
- Connected Case: S.C. No. 1401 of 2025
- Police Station: Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
- Citation: 2026:KER:9312
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a 36-year-old school teacher, approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Atrocities & Sexual Violence Against Women and Children), Thiruvananthapuram.
The prosecution arose from Crime No. 293 of 2025 registered at Vizhinjam Police Station.
According to the prosecution, on 10 February 2025 at around 12.30 pm, the accused allegedly beat the defacto complainant, his student, with a cane on the buttocks inside the staff room of VPS Malankara School, Venganoor.
Based on this allegation, offences were registered under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
The teacher contended that the case was falsely foisted and that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not constitute the offences alleged.
Delay in FIR and Medical Evidence
The Court noted that although the incident was alleged to have occurred on 10 February 2025, the First Information Report was registered only on 13 February 2025.
The medical records further showed that the child was taken to the Community Health Centre, Vizhinjam, only on the evening of 13 February 2025 with complaints of pain over the buttocks.
Significantly, the Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate recorded that no external injuries were found by the doctor who examined the child.
The absence of visible injuries weighed with the Court while assessing whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were made out.
Applicability of Section 118(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar examined the scope of Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which penalises voluntarily causing hurt by
“dangerous weapons or means.”
The provision enumerates weapons such as instruments for shooting, stabbing or cutting, fire, heated substances, poison, explosives, corrosive substances, or any instrument likely to cause death.
The Court held that a cane, as allegedly used in the present case, could not be treated as a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of Section 118(1).
On this reasoning, it concluded that
“the allegations against the petitioner does not constitute the offence under Section 118(1) of BNS.”
Corporal Punishment
A substantial part of the judgment was devoted to examining the extent to which a teacher may lawfully impose corporal punishment.
The Court relied on earlier precedents, including K.A. Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala (2005), Rajan @ Raju v. Sub Inspector of Police (2019), and Jomi v. State of Kerala (2024).
Quoting extensively from these decisions, the Court reiterated that when parents entrust a child to a school, there is an implied consent authorising teachers to enforce discipline and correct students. The Court recalled earlier observations that:
“When a student does not behave properly or act according to the rules of a school, and if the teacher chastise him, on a bona fide intention, by giving him a corporal punishment for improving his character and conduct, the Court has to ascertain whether the said act of the teacher was bona fide or not.”
The judgment emphasised that reasonable chastisement administered in good faith, without intent to cause harm, does not ordinarily attract penal provisions.
At the same time, the Court cautioned that “unwieldy, uncontrolled and emotional attacks or actions” by teachers cannot be justified and that each case must be assessed on its own facts.
Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act
The allegation under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which deals with cruelty to a child, was also examined.
Referring to the decision in Jomi v. State of Kerala, the Court held that when corporal punishment is inflicted without malafide intention and purely for maintaining discipline or the well-being of the student, the offence under Section 75 is not attracted.
In the present case, the Court found no material to indicate cruelty, excessive force, or a guilty intention. The alleged act was confined to minimal corporal punishment aimed at enforcing discipline.
Findings and Final Order
After analysing the delay in lodging the FIR, the medical evidence, the nature of the alleged weapon, and the settled legal principles governing corporal punishment by teachers, the High Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.
The Court observed that there was
“no evidence to show that he had any guilty intention to cause any hurt to the defacto complainant or to treat the defacto complainant with cruelty.”
Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed, and all further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C. No. 1401 of 2025 arising from Crime No. 293 of 2025 were quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
