Question: A, a schoolmaster inflicts moderate punishment to a child under 12 years of age for the purpose of discipline. Has A committed any offense? Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A, a schoolmaster inflicts moderate punishment to a child under 12 years of age for the purpose of discipline. Has A committed any… Read More »

Question: A, a schoolmaster inflicts moderate punishment to a child under 12 years of age for the purpose of discipline. Has A committed any offense? Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A, a schoolmaster inflicts moderate punishment to a child under 12 years of age for the purpose of discipline. Has A committed any offense? Answer: Section 88 safeguards “Acts not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit” and Section 89...

Question: A, a schoolmaster inflicts moderate punishment to a child under 12 years of age for the purpose of discipline. Has A committed any offense?

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A, a schoolmaster inflicts moderate punishment to a child under 12 years of age for the purpose of discipline. Has A committed any offense?

Answer:

Section 88 safeguards “Acts not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit” and Section 89 protects “Act done in good faith for benefit of a child or insane person, by or by consent of the guardian

When a child under the age of 12 is sent to a school by his or her parent or guardian, it is presumed that the parent or guardian gives his or her implied consent to put the child under the discipline and control of the school authorities and, if appropriate, to impose reasonable, fair and mild corporal punishment on the child for the maintenance or correction of school discipline. Therefore, a mild corporal punishment imposed in good faith by a teacher to preserve school discipline or inculcate good habits in the pupil is not a crime.

In Ganesh Chandra Saha v. Jivraj Somani [AIR 1965 Cal 32], it was held that “the teacher shall be protected under section 89 of the Code even if he exceeds the limit if any, laid down by the government of the State”.

In M Natesan v. State of Madras [ AIR 1962 Mad 216], it was held by the Madras HC that it cannot be denied that, having regard to the peculiar position of a school teacher, he must, in the nature of things, have the authority to enforce discipline and to correct the charge placed on him by a student. To deny that authority would be to deny everything that is desirable and necessary for the welfare, discipline, and education of the student concerned.

If the teacher exceeds the authority and inflicts such damage to the pupil as may be considered to be unreasonable and immoderate, the benefit of the exceptions would naturally be lost. Whether or not he is entitled to the benefit of the exceptions in a given case will depend on the specific nature, extent and severity of the penalty.

Therefore, A, a schoolmaster when inflicts moderate punishment to a child under 12 years of age for the purpose of discipline has committed no offense and is entitled to the protection of section 88, IPC.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
  2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
  3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
  4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
  5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
  6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
  7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
  8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
  9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
  10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
Updated On 2021-07-05T17:57:21+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story