2. Vide judgment and order of sentence dated 6th January, 2017 and 20th January, 2017, the learned President, Children’s Court for the State of Goa at Panaji1, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as below: –
“ ……….. “
The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2017 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa3 which came to be decided by the judgment dated 11th November, 2022 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentences awarded to the appellant for the substantive offences in the following manner: –
“ …………………. “
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in this appeal by special leave.
Analysis and Conclusion
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgments and the material placed on record.
FIR lodged after delay of eight days
11. On examining the judgment of the trial Court, it becomes apparent that the incident occurred on 1st February, 2013 at about 08:00 a.m. in the premises of St. Ann’s School, Tivim, Bardez, Goa, whereas the FIR came to be lodged after a delay of eight days, i.e., on 9th February, 2013 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 352 and 504 of the IPC and under Section 8 of the Act of 2003.
Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act 2003 intent is to protect children against serious forms of abuse and not to criminalise minor
13. 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. The legislative intent is to protect children against serious forms of abuse and not to criminalise minor, incidental acts emanating during the course of simple quarrels.
14. The only allegation against the appellant as borne out from the statement of PW-3, the injured child is that the appellant hit him with the school bag belonging to his own son. Even if we accept the injured child’s version in entirety, it would still not be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence of “child abuse” punishable under Section 8 of the Act of 2003.
15. 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. To invoke the penal consequences of such a serious offence in the absence of clear intention or conduct indicative of abuse would amount to an unwarranted expansion of the provision.
17. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, ex-facie the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 8 of the Act of 2003 is unsustainable.
18. Furthermore, we are of the view that both the Courts below committed grave error in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC, as the said provision could only be invoked if the abusive or insulting language used by the accused against the injured child was intended to provoke breach of peace. Ex-facie, 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. Hence, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 504 IPC is also unsustainable in facts as well as in law.
Appellant given benefit of section 4 of P.O Act, 1958
19. At this stage, we may note that the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC carries maximum punishment of simple imprisonment for one year whereas offence punishable under Section 352 IPC carries maximum punishment of imprisonment for three months. Thus, the mandatory provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 would apply and the appellant deserves to be given benefit thereof.
20. Accordingly, we hereby acquit the appellant for the charge of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Act of 2003 and Section 504 of the IPC. The impugned judgments are set aside to this extent.
Party
Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar vs. The State of Goa – Criminal Appeal No. 1991 of 2023 – 2025 INSC 1041 – August 26, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta.
