A tragic incident involving a class 6 student who took their own life has led to significant consequences. The student left behind a note naming Sister Mercy, also known as Elizabeth Jose, as a source of distress. In response, the court has criticized the teacher for her alleged role in the situation.
Chhattisgarh : The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a plea by a teacher, Sister Mercy alias Elizabeth Jose, to quash a chargesheet against her following the suicide of a Class VI student who named her in the suicide note.
The court emphasized that subjecting a child to physical violence in school under the guise of discipline or education is cruel.
Read Also: “No Kidnapping if Minor Leaves Home Willingly”: Punjab & Haryana HC
The bench, comprising Justices Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, made this observation while hearing Jose’s petition. She arrested after the suicide note implicated her.
In its July 29 order, the HC stated,
“Imposing corporal punishment on a child contradicts their right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The court elaborated,
“On a broader scale, the right to life includes all elements that give life meaning, making it wholesome and worth living. It signifies more than mere survival or animal existence. The right to life enshrined in Article 21 also encompasses any aspect that makes life dignified.”
The HC further stated,
“Being small does not make a child less human than an adult. It is cruel to subject a child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education. A child, being a precious national resource, should be nurtured with tenderness and care, not cruelty. Subjecting a child to corporal punishment for reform cannot be considered part of education,”
An FIR filed in February at Manipur police station against Sister Mercy alias Elizabeth Jose (43), a teacher at Carmel Convent School in Ambikapur, Surguja District, for allegedly abetting the suicide of a Class VI student, according to the petitioner’s lawyer, Rajat Agrawal.
The suicide note mentioned that Sister Elizabeth confiscated the victim’s and her classmates’ ID cards.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that Jose had only admonished the student and taken her ID card as part of the school’s usual disciplinary procedures on the day of the incident.
Jose’s counsel submitted,
“The petitioner never intended to abet the student’s suicide. The police registered an FIR against the petitioner solely based on the suicide note without conducting a preliminary inquiry,”
The state counsel, opposing the plea to quash the chargesheet and FIR, contended that evidence from the deceased’s classmates recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) indicated that the petitioner’s conduct was so harsh that it caused mental trauma among students.
Read Also: “DON’T ARREST MINORS GOING ON DATES”: Uttarakhand HC Raps State
Dismissing the petition, the HC stated that it could not examine the defense of the accused or weigh the evidence at this stage.
The court noted that disputed facts could not be adjudicated under Section 528 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) at this juncture and only the prima facie prosecution case should be considered.
Evidence needs to be presented to substantiate the defense of the accused, the HC said, concluding that there was no basis to quash the chargesheet and FIR against the petitioner.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE