The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the offence of child abuse cannot be invoked for trivial or incidental acts involving children such as a blow during a quarrel [Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar vs. The State of Goa]..The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta said that to constitute child abuse, there must be clear intention of harm, cruelty, exploitation or ill-treatment and and must necessarily involve deliberate cruelty or ill-treatmentInvoking serious penal consequences without such intent would unduly expand the scope of the law, the Court held.“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,” it noted. .The Court was hearing a case dating back to February 2013 when a scuffle took place on the premises of a school in Goa's Tivim. The prosecution alleged that the accused/appellant hit a child with the school bag of his own son, causing minor injuries. The trial court convicted him for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 352 (use of criminal force) and 504 (provoke a breach of peace) of the IPC and also under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, which criminalises child abuse. It sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment under the Act, along with smaller concurrent sentences for the other offences.On appeal, the Bombay High Court reduced the sentence in 2022, holding that the act did not warrant a severe punishment. However, it upheld the conviction under all provisions..Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that a single blow with a school bag without intention to harm would not amount to child abuse under the Act. He also sought benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, citing his background as a labourer and the fact that this was his only offence. The State opposed leniency, stressing that the Goa Children’s Act was enacted to address rampant child abuse in the State and that granting probation would undermine its deterrent effect.The Court examined the records and noted that the medical officer who examined the child admitted that the injuries could also have been caused by a fall. It further held that the provision on child abuse under the Goa Children’s Act was intended to address cruelty, exploitation or sustained maltreatment, and not incidental acts in a scuffle..The Court also set aside the conviction under Section 504 IPC, holding that the alleged verbal abuse did not amount to provocation likely to cause a breach of peace. However, it upheld the conviction under Sections 323 and 352 IPC, which deal with voluntarily causing hurt and assault. Yet instead of requiring him to serve the sentence, the Court directed that he be released on probation..The appellant was represented by advocates Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Pallavi Daem, Gunjan Kumari and Anubhav Bhardwaj.The State was represented by advocates Har Karam Jot Kaur and Shikha Sarin..[Read Judgment]
