Not Every Assault On A Child Is Child Abuse: Bombay HC Clarifies Scope Of Goa Children’s Act, 2003

The Bombay High Court at Goa has drawn an important distinction between serious child abuse and isolated acts of violence involving minors, holding that not every assault on a child automatically attracts the offence of “child abuse” under the Goa Children’s Act, 2003.

Emphasising legislative intent, the Court ruled that the offence of child abuse presupposes deliberate cruelty, exploitation, or sustained ill-treatment directed at a child, and cannot be stretched to cover every solitary or impulsive act arising out of a neighbourhood quarrel.

A Single Bench of Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, while partly allowing a criminal appeal, observed that “the offence of child abuse 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 Court set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, while upholding their conviction for causing hurt under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and remanding the matter to the Children’s Court to consider the grant of probation.

The case arose from an incident dated 04.06.2011, when a minor boy was allegedly assaulted near a water tap outside his house in Ponda, Goa.

The prosecution alleged that the two accused, who were related to the victim, abused him with filthy language, restrained him, and assaulted him with an iron rod, causing bleeding injuries to his head and shoulder.

The child was taken to Goa Medical College, Bambolim, where he received treatment, following which his mother lodged a complaint. After investigation, the case was tried by the Children’s Court, which convicted the accused under Sections 324 and 504 IPC as well as Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act.

In appeal, the High Court undertook a detailed reappreciation of evidence. While affirming the findings that the assault on the child stood proved beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of the injured child’s testimony, corroborating eyewitness accounts, and medical evidence, the Court scrutinised whether the facts satisfied the statutory definition of “child abuse” under the Goa Children’s Act.

Referring extensively to Sections 2(m) and 8 of the Goa Children’s Act, the Court noted that “child abuse” includes psychological and physical abuse, cruelty, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment, and acts that debase or demean the dignity of a child.

However, the Court stressed that the statute was enacted to protect children from serious and systemic forms of abuse, and not to criminalise every isolated act of violence merely because the victim is a child.

The court relied on recent Supreme Court precedent to underline that the offence of child abuse necessarily involves an intention to cause harm, cruelty, or ill-treatment that exceeds a momentary or impulsive reaction; the Court observed that a sudden act committed in the heat of the moment, without evidence of sustained maltreatment or exploitative intent, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of child abuse under the Act.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Court found that the incident, though serious and resulting in injury, was a solitary occurrence arising out of an immediate confrontation; There was no material on record to show a pattern of abuse, prolonged cruelty, exploitation, or conduct aimed at systematically harming or degrading the child. It was added that expanding the scope of child abuse provisions to such isolated incidents would amount to an unwarranted enlargement of penal liability, contrary to legislative intent.

At the same time, the Court made it clear that the acquittal under the Goa Children’s Act did not dilute the seriousness of the assault itself. Upholding the conviction under Section 324 IPC, the Court reiterated that the evidence of an injured child witness carries special evidentiary value and is entitled to great weight, particularly when corroborated by medical evidence and independent witnesses.

The Court rejected the defence theory that the injuries were caused by an accidental fall, noting that the medical testimony supported the prosecution case of assault with a blunt object.

Importantly, the judgment contains a cautionary note for courts and investigating agencies dealing with child-related offences.

While reaffirming the need to protect children and ensure safe environments for their growth, the Court emphasised that criminal law must be applied with precision. Over-criminalisation of isolated incidents under special child protection statutes, the Court observed, risks blurring the distinction between grave abuse and ordinary criminal offences, potentially undermining both child protection objectives and principles of fair trial.

Considering the age of the case, the familial relationship between the parties, and the absence of any subsequent incidents, the Court remanded the matter to the Children’s Court to consider extending the benefit of probation to the appellants under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Case Title: Anita Naik & Anr. v. State of Goa

Bench: Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat

Date of Judgment: 03.02.2026