Simple blow with school bag can’t be termed as child abuse: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said a simple blow with a school bag, without any evidence of deliberate or sustained maltreatment, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of child abuse.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta said the offence of “child abuse” as provided under Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 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,” the court said.

The court acquitted Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar in a case of child abuse under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 for allegedly hitting the injured child with a school bag belonging to his son in 2013.

Justice Mehta, who authored the 11-page judgment on behalf of the bench, 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 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,” the court said.

The incident had occurred on February 1, 2013, 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 February 9, 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.

The court pointed out, even if it accepts 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.

The bench noted that the medical officer who examined the injured child on February 9, 2013, has admitted in his cross-examination that the possibility of the injuries being caused due to a fall cannot be ruled out.

The court held the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 8 of the Act of 2003 as unsustainable.

It also said 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.

The bench said 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.

The court, however, confirmed the conviction for the offences punishable under the Sections 323 and 352 of the IPC but ordered his release on probation upon furnishing a bond of good conduct for a period of one year.

In 2017, the children’s court at Panaji, Goa, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to one year jail with Rs one lakh as fine. The Bombay High Court in November, 2022 confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to 15 days in jail with Rs 15,000 fine.