‘Cane not dangerous weapon’: Kerala HC says teachers hold peculiar position, quashes case

The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a school teacher accused of caning a student, ruling that acts done in good faith for discipline do not necessarily amount to a criminal offence. The court observed that teachers hold a “peculiar position” of authority when correcting pupils entrusted to their care.

Allegations and legal background

The case arose from an incident on 10 February 2025 at VPS Malankara School, Venganoor. Sibin S.V., a 36-year-old teacher, was accused of voluntarily causing hurt after allegedly beating a student on the buttocks with a cane in the staff room.

Authorities filed charges under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanjita (BNS) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the plea seeking to quash proceedings. However, the court noted a three-day delay in registering the FIR. A medical examination at the Community Health Centre, Vizhinjam, recorded “no external injuries”, mentioning only complaints of pain.

Cane not classed as dangerous weapon

A key legal question concerned whether the cane qualified as a dangerous weapon under Section 118(1) of the BNS, which refers to instruments typically used for shooting, stabbing or cutting.

The Court held: “Since the weapon allegedly used by the petitioner is only a cane, the same does not amount to a dangerous weapon as defined under Section 118(1) of the BNS”.

As a result, the allegations did not meet the legal threshold required for that specific offence.

Discipline, implied authority and court’s conclusion

The Bench addressed the limits of student discipline, noting that parents give “implied authority” to teachers to enforce standards necessary for a child’s development.

“If it is found that he had acted with a good intention, only to improve or correct the student, he is within his limits,” the court stated. It added that “unbridled fury” or “unreasonable physical suffering” is never condoned, while observing the petitioner used only “minimum corporal punishment”.

Finding no evidence of a “guilty intention” to treat the student with cruelty, the court said continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, it formally quashed the case pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.