Conviction for “child abuse” set aside where single blow with school bag did not show intention to harm; probation ordered for lesser offences

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard the criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his convictions under Sections 323, 352 and 504 of the IPC and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, arising from an incident at a school in Tivim, Goa. The appeal challenged the trial Court’s conviction and sentence and the subsequent judgment of the Bombay High Court at Goa which had reduced the sentences imposed by the trial Court.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and altered the criminal consequences. It acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 and for the offence under Section 504 IPC, and confirmed convictions under Sections 323 and 352 IPC. The Court held that the statutory offence of “child abuse” required more than an isolated or incidental act and that the prosecution had not established the requisite intention or sustained maltreatment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted that, on the material on record, “ex-facie the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 8 of the Act of 2003 is unsustainable.” It also recorded that the medical witness had admitted that “the possibility of the injuries being caused due to a fall cannot be ruled out.”

Background

The dispute arose from an incident on 1 February 2013 at about 8:00 a.m. in the premises of St. Ann’s School, Tivim, Bardez, Goa, where the injured child alleged that the appellant had struck him with a school bag belonging to the appellant’s son. The FIR was lodged on 9 February 2013. The trial Court convicted the appellant on 6 and 20 January 2017 and sentenced him under Sections 323, 352 and 504 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, with substantive imprisonment terms to run concurrently. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court at Goa, which by its judgment dated 11 November 2022 partly allowed the appeal and materially reduced the sentences for the substantive offences.

On special leave, the Supreme Court examined statutory definitions in the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, particularly Section 2(m) defining “child abuse,” and Section 8 prescribing punishment. The Court interpreted those provisions as aimed at protecting children from “cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment, or conduct intended to cause harm,” and observed that such provisions were not intended to criminalise “minor, incidental acts” during quarrels. The Court found that the evidence did not establish intention to cause harm or sustained maltreatment; the medical evidence admitted alternative explanations for the injury; and the convictions under Section 8(2) and Section 504 IPC were unsustainable. The Court, noting that the remaining offences carried maximum punishments below seven years, applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and directed that the appellant be released on probation upon furnishing bonds to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for one year. The Court ordered that the appellant furnish bonds before the jurisdictional trial Court within three months. The appeal was partly allowed and the convictions for Sections 8(2) Goa Children’s Act and 504 IPC were set aside; convictions under Sections 323 and 352 IPC were confirmed with probation in lieu of immediate imprisonment.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1991 of 2023 (Citation: 2025 INSC 1041) Case Title: Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. The State of Goa Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment