Student dies after 300 rise in school, High Court ordered a compensation of 1 lakh to the teacher

A tragic incident came to light at RDD High School in Bungaarh in Sundargarh district of Odisha, where a student died after getting up 300 times. While hearing the case, the High Court ordered teacher Ramesh Chandra Sethi to give compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the family of the deceased.

However, the court said that this physical punishment given aimed at maintaining discipline cannot be considered a crime under the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act 2015.

What is the whole matter?

• In November 2019, NCC in-charge teacher Ramesh Chandra Sethi sentenced the student to sit 300 times under disciplinary action.
• Soon after this sentence, the student’s health deteriorated and was admitted to the hospital.
• The student died on 2 November 2019 while undergoing treatment at MKCG Medical College.
• A criminal case was registered against the teacher after this incident.

High Court verdict: “For compensation relief, not to accept the blame”

A single bench of Odisha High Court Justice Shibo Shankar Mishra said that giving compensation is not equal to acceptance, but an attempt to give relief to the bereaved family.

“A young man lost his life. No compensation can compensate for this irreparable damage. ”

“The medical report rejects the direct conviction of the teacher. It is the duty of the state to provide proper medical assistance and safe environment to students living in government schools and hostels. ”

The court also said that the life of the child is more than any economic compensation and this amount is being given to the parents for their child’s love, care and loss.

Criminal action canceled against teacher

The Odisha High Court quashed criminal action against teacher Ramesh Chandra Sethi.

• Earlier, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate had registered a case under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
• On 4 March 2025, the High Court ordered the cancellation of this action under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC).
• The court admitted that the teacher’s purpose was to maintain discipline, not to deliberately harm the student.