No Child Abuse in Simple School Bag Hit, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on August 26, 2025 held that a simple blow with a school bag, without any evidence of deliberate or sustained maltreatment, does not constitute “child abuse” under the Goa Children’s Act, 2003.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta observed that the offence of child abuse necessarily presupposes an intention to cause harm, cruelty, exploitation, or ill-treatment directed towards a child in a manner exceeding a mere incidental or momentary act during a quarrel.

The Court acquitted appellant of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, for allegedly hitting a child with a school bag belonging to the appellant’s son during an incident in 2013.

“To invoke 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,” the bench said.

The President, Children’s Court for the State of Goa at Panaji had convicted Khajnekar and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 8(2) of the Act, apart from imposing sentences under Sections 323, 352, and 504 of the IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.

On appeal, the Bombay High Court at Goa partly allowed the plea and reduced the sentence under the Goa Children’s Act to 15 days of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant argued that the alleged act was unintentional and did not fall within the definition of “child abuse” under Section 2(m) of the Act.

It was submitted that the offence under the Act relates to maltreatment of a child, and an isolated act during a sudden scuffle cannot amount to abuse as contemplated by law.

The counsel further urged that the appellant, a labourer and sole breadwinner of his family, would suffer grave hardship if compelled to serve the remaining sentence after nearly 13 years of the incident, and sought the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The state counsel opposed, arguing that the High Court had already adopted a liberal approach by substantially reducing the sentence and no further leniency was warranted.

The Court noted that the incident took place on February 1, 2013 at St. Ann’s School, Tivim, Bardez, Goa, while the FIR was lodged on February 9, 2013, eight days later, under Sections 323, 352, 504 IPC and Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act.

Referring to Section 2(m) and Section 8 of the Act, the bench emphasized that child abuse refers to acts involving cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment, or conduct intended to cause harm, and not trivial or isolated incidents arising from simple quarrels. The allegation was only that the appellant hit the child with his son’s school bag, which even if accepted in entirety, would not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence.

The Court further noted the testimony of the Medical Officer, who admitted in cross-examination that the injuries could also have been caused by a fall.

Holding the conviction under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act and Section 504 IPC unsustainable, the Court observed that Section 504 applies only where abusive language is used with intent to provoke a 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,” the bench stated.

On the remaining offences under Sections 323 and 352 IPC, the Court said;

“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.”

Accordingly, the bench ordered;

“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.”

The Court, however, confirmed Khajnekar’s conviction under Sections 323 and 352 IPC.

Considering the nature of the offences and the long lapse of time, the bench extended the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

“Instead of making him undergo the sentence immediately, the appellant shall be released on probation upon furnishing bonds before the jurisdictional trial court within three months to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year,” the Court directed, partly allowing the appeal.

Case Title: Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. The State of Goa

Date of Judgment: August 26, 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta