LI Network
Published on: January 23, 2024 at 14:45 IST
The Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a school headmistress accused of offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
The charges stemmed from the headmistress cutting the hair of a tribal student during a school assembly, allegedly causing derogatory effects on his dignity.
Justice K Babu noted that there was no mens rea established against the headmistress. The judge observed that her actions were an attempt to enforce disciplinary control over the student and, at most, exceeded the boundaries of corporal punishment. Consequently, the alleged acts were deemed insufficient to attract offenses under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
The headmistress sought relief after her anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The charges against her included Sections 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint) of the IPC, Sections 3 (punishment for offenses of atrocities) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, and Section 75 (punishment for cruelty to a child) of the JJ Act.
While the Sessions Court found no prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, it rejected the anticipatory bail application based on a proved offense under the JJ Act. The High Court, however, raised doubts about any intention to act with cruelty against the child under Section 75 of the JJ Act.
The Court considered factors such as a delay of ten days in filing the FIR, evidence showing the headmistress’s concern for the children’s welfare, and the absence of mens rea. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the appellant was not absconding and posed no threat to tamper with evidence or the investigation.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the headmistress did not intentionally commit any act derogatory to the victim’s dignity but was merely enforcing discipline for the betterment and welfare of the student. The defense also asserted that a false complaint was filed for extraneous reasons.
In contrast, the victim’s counsel contended that the headmistress’s act was against human dignity and warranted charges under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, causing mental frustration to the victim and their family.
The Court’s findings led to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail.
Case Title: SJ v State of Kerala