A Gujarat court has sentenced a private school teacher to three years and three months in prison for slapping a Class 9 student over incomplete homework, an assault that ruptured the 14-year-old girl’s eardrum and caused long-term hearing impairment. The court also imposed a ₹50,000 fine, directing that the entire amount be paid to the victim as compensation.
The incident dates back to January 1, 2020. According to the prosecution, the student, who studied at a private school in Gandhinagar, had failed to complete her homework. Angered by this, the teacher, Parulben Patel, slapped the girl three times on her left ear inside the classroom. The blows caused severe internal damage, tearing the eardrum and permanently affecting the child’s hearing.
A complaint was lodged by the student’s family two days later at the Sector-21 police station, following which an FIR was registered. Medical examinations confirmed that the injury was not minor but grievous in nature. During the trial, the court took note of the fact that more than four years after the incident, the victim was still undergoing treatment, underlining the seriousness and lasting impact of the assault.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
After evaluating medical evidence and witness testimonies, the court convicted Patel under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act for assaulting a child. In its judgment, the court observed that physical violence by a teacher against a student is not only illegal but also a grave breach of trust inherent in the teacher–student relationship.
While deciding the sentence, the court rejected any plea for probation, stating that granting leniency in such cases would send the wrong message and undermine the very objective of child protection. The judge observed that the gravity of the offence and its consequences far outweighed any mitigating circumstances, and that a strong deterrent was necessary.
The defence argued that the student was indisciplined and claimed that the case had been falsely filed by the parents. The defence also sought leniency on the grounds that the teacher was allegedly suffering from cancer. The court dismissed these claims, noting that no documentary evidence had been produced to substantiate the medical condition.
The prosecution stressed that the teacher–student relationship involves a clear imbalance of power and that corporal punishment can have deep and lasting physical as well as psychological consequences for children. Accepting this argument, the court said discipline can never be enforced through violence.
The court clarified that the fine amount would be paid directly to the victim to support her ongoing treatment and rehabilitation. The case has once again highlighted the need for zero tolerance towards corporal punishment in schools and stronger training mechanisms to ensure non-violent disciplinary practices.
In a firm message, the court said a teacher’s duty is to provide education in a safe and supportive environment, not to control students through fear or physical force.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
