The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that every trivial or isolated incident of assault on a child cannot be categorized as “child abuse” under the Goa Children’s Act, 2003. The Court acquitted a man of this charge, observing that the offence requires an intention to cause harm, cruelty, or deliberate ill-treatment, which was absent in the present case.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta acquitted Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar of charges under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the Court upheld his conviction for simple assault under Sections 323 and 352 of the IPC and granted him the benefit of probation.
Case Background
The case originates from an incident on February 1, 2013, in the premises of St. Ann’s School, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. An FIR was lodged eight days later, on February 9, 2013, against the appellant, Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar.
On January 6, 2017, the President of the Children’s Court for the State of Goa at Panaji convicted Mr. Khajnekar under Sections 323, 352, and 504 of the IPC, and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003. He was sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment, including one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for the offence under the Goa Children’s Act.
Mr. Khajnekar challenged this decision before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. By its judgment dated November 11, 2022, the High Court partly allowed his appeal, significantly reducing the sentences. The sentence under the Goa Children’s Act was reduced to 15 days of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹15,000/-. Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, Mr. Khajnekar filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel argued that the offence under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act was not made out. It was submitted that the appellant had only “casually hit the injured child by a school bag belonging to appellant’s own son,” and the act was unintentional. Counsel contended that a “mere act of assault on a child during a sudden scuffle cannot be covered within the mischief of child abuse” as defined in Section 2(m) of the Act. It was also argued that the appellant, a labourer and the sole breadwinner for his family, had already served some time in custody and should be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Conversely, the counsel for the State of Goa opposed these submissions, arguing that the offence involved moral turpitude and the legislation was enacted to curb child abuse. It was contended that extending probation would send a wrong message to society and that the High Court had already shown sufficient leniency by reducing the sentence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and records, found merit in the appellant’s arguments. The bench, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, undertook a detailed analysis of the definition of “child abuse” under Section 2(m) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003.
The Court observed that the legislative intent was to protect children from serious harm. It stated, “On a bare perusal of the above provisions, it is evident that the offence of ‘child abuse’ as provided under section 8 cannot be attracted to every trivial or isolated incident involving a child, but must necessarily co-relate with acts involving cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment, or conduct intended to cause harm.”
Applying this interpretation to the facts, the Court found that the allegation of hitting the child with a school bag did not meet this high threshold. The judgment noted, “The offence of child abuse necessarily presupposes an intention to cause harm, cruelty, exploitation, or ill-treatment directed towards a child in a manner that exceeds a mere incidental or momentary act during a quarrel. A simple blow with a school bag, without any evidence of deliberate or sustained maltreatment, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of child abuse.”
The Court also pointed to the testimony of the medical officer, Dr. James Jose (PW-2), who admitted during cross-examination that the child’s injuries could have been caused by a fall.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the conviction under Section 504 IPC (insult intended to provoke breach of the peace) was also unsustainable. The bench reasoned that “the alleged act of the appellant in abusing the child could not be construed to be such which was intended to provoke breach of peace.”
Final Decision
In light of its analysis, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It acquitted Mr. Khajnekar of the charges under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, and Section 504 of the IPC.
The conviction under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 352 (assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation) of the IPC was confirmed. However, citing the mandatory provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for offences with punishment of less than seven years, the Court released the appellant on probation. Mr. Khajnekar is required to furnish bonds before the trial court to “keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year.”
