The protection of children against abuse and exploitation is an integral part of India’s legal framework. Legislation such as the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 were enacted to shield children from harm and ensure their holistic development. However, the Supreme Court in Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. State of Goa (2025) addressed an important question: Should every physical altercation involving a child, even if minor or incidental, be treated as “child abuse”?
This case involved a stray blow during a quarrel that was prosecuted as “child abuse,” prompting the Court to clarify the contours of what amounts to abuse under the law.
Case Background
- Incident: On 1 February 2013, during a scuffle at St. Ann’s School, Goa, the appellant allegedly hit a child with a school bag belonging to his own son.
- Charges: FIR was lodged after eight days, charging him under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 352 (assault), and 504 (intentional insult) of the IPC, along with Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003.
- Trial Court (2017): Convicted the appellant under all charges, imposing imprisonment and fines.
- High Court (2022): Partly reduced the sentence but upheld convictions, including under the Goa Children’s Act.
- Supreme Court (2025): Considered whether such an act truly amounted to “child abuse.”
Issue
- Does a stray or unintentional blow to a child during a quarrel amount to “child abuse” under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003?
Arguments
On Behalf of the Appellant
- The incident was unintentional, arising from a sudden quarrel, with no intention of harming the child.
- The definition of child abuse under Section 2(m) of the Goa Act envisages maltreatment, cruelty, exploitation, or deliberate ill-treatment, not trivial acts.
- The appellant, a daily-wage labourer, had already spent time in custody, and further punishment would deprive his family of livelihood.
- Since all offences carried less than 7 years’ punishment, he was entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
On Behalf of the State
- Offences under the Goa Act relate to moral turpitude and must be strictly enforced to protect children.
- Both the trial court and the High Court had delivered concurrent findings of guilt.
- Granting probation would send the wrong message to society about tolerance towards child abuse.
Court’s Analysis
Definition of Child Abuse
Section 2(m) of the Goa Act defines child abuse as:
- Psychological or physical abuse, cruelty, neglect, or maltreatment.
- Any act debasing a child’s dignity.
- Denial of survival needs or medical treatment causing serious harm.
Court’s Interpretation
- Not every trivial incident amounts to child abuse. The legislative intent is to punish serious acts of cruelty or exploitation, not incidental or momentary acts during quarrels.
- The allegation that the child was hit with a school bag did not demonstrate cruelty or sustained maltreatment.
- Intention is crucial—child abuse presupposes conduct meant to harm or demean a child’s dignity.
- The medical officer admitted the injuries could also have been caused by a fall, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held:
- Conviction under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act was unsustainable—a stray blow does not amount to “child abuse.”
- Conviction under Section 504 IPC (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) was also unsustainable, as no intent to provoke was proved.
- Convictions under Sections 323 and 352 IPC (simple hurt and assault) were upheld.
- Considering the passage of 13 years since the incident, the appellant was released on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated:
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.
…….We, however, confirm his conviction for the offences punishable under the Sections 323 and 352 of the IPC. Instead of making him to undergo the sentence immediately, the appellant shall be released on probation upon furnishing bonds before the jurisdictional trial Court, within a period of three months from today to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year.
Key Legal Insights
- Distinction Between Assault and Abuse: The Court clarified that while assault on a child may attract IPC provisions (e.g., hurt, assault), it cannot automatically be equated with child abuse under special child protection laws. Abuse requires deliberate maltreatment.
- Legislative Intent of Child Protection Laws: The Goa Children’s Act was designed to prevent serious abuse—psychological, physical, sexual, or neglect—not to criminalise trivial disputes.
- Importance of Intention: For an act to amount to child abuse, mens rea (intention) must be established. A casual or unintentional act is insufficient.
- Role of Probation: Where offences are minor and the accused is a first-time offender, the Probation of Offenders Act can provide an alternative to imprisonment, balancing justice with rehabilitation.
Broader Implications
This judgment sets a precedent by ensuring that child protection laws are applied proportionately. If every minor incident involving a child were to be labelled “child abuse,” it would dilute the seriousness of genuine cases and over-criminalise everyday conflicts.
By striking down the conviction under the Goa Act, the Supreme Court underscored the need for careful judicial interpretation to maintain the credibility of child protection frameworks while avoiding overreach.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. State of Goa establishes that a stray blow to a child during a quarrel does not amount to child abuse under the Goa Children’s Act, 2003. Abuse requires intentional harm or maltreatment, not incidental acts. The decision ensures that while children remain strongly protected from real abuse, the law is not misapplied to trivial disputes, preserving both fairness and legislative purpose.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams