[ad_1]
Supreme Court of India
Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar vs The State Of Goa on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
2025 INSC 1041
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1991 OF 2023
SANTOSH SAHADEV
KHAJNEKAR ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GOA ….RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Vide judgment and order of sentence dated 6th
January, 2017 and 20th January, 2017, the learned
President, Children’s Court for the State of Goa at
Panaji1, convicted the appellant and sentenced him
as below: –
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.08.26
15:53:10 IST
Reason: 1 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘trial Court’
1
Sections Punishment323 of the Indian Penal Simple Imprisonment of
Code, 18602 6 months.
352 IPC Fine of Rs. 500/- and in
default simple
imprisonment of 2 days504 IPC Simple Imprisonment of
10 monthsSection 8(2) of the Goa Rigorous Imprisonment
Children’s Act, 2003 of 1 years and to pay fine
of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in
default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for
6 months.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the
said judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No. 10 of
2017 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa3 which
came to be decided by the judgment dated 11th
November, 2022 whereby the High Court partly
2 For Short, IPC
3 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘High Court’
2
allowed the appeal by reducing the sentences
awarded to the appellant for the substantive offences
in the following manner: –
Sections Punishment
323 IPC Simple Imprisonment of
10 days
352 IPC Fine of Rs. 500/- and in
default simple
imprisonment of 2 days
504 IPC Simple Imprisonment of
10 days
Section 8(2) of the Goa Simple Imprisonment for
Children’s Act, 2003 a period of 15 days and
to pay fine of Rs.
15,000/- and in default,
to undergo simple
imprisonment for 5
months.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in
this appeal by special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant: –
5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that ex
facie, the offence under Section 8 (2) of the Goa
3
Children’s Act, 20034 is not made out against the
appellant for the simple reason that the appellant is
alleged to have casually hit the injured child by a
school bag belonging to appellant’s own son. This
was unintentional and is not covered within the
definition of “child abuse” as defined under Section
2(m) of the Act of 2003. He urged that the very basis
for the offences contemplated under the Act of 2003
relate to abuse of a child, and a mere act of assault
on a child during a sudden scuffle cannot be covered
within the mischief of child abuse as defined under
Section 2(m) of the said Act so as to render the
appellant liable for the said offence.
6. He submitted that the appellant has already
undergone custody for some days and being a
labourer by occupation, he would suffer grave
hardship if required to undergo the remaining
sentence at this stage i.e. after nearly 13 years of the
incident, as it would deprive his family of their sole
breadwinner.
4 Hereinafter, Referred to as ‘Act of 2003’
4
7. He further submitted that all the offences for
which the appellant stands convicted are punishable
with imprisonment of less than 7 years and thus, the
mandatory provisions of Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 are applicable and the appellant deserves to be
given the benefit thereof.
8. He further submitted that this is the only
offence in which the appellant has ever been found
involved and, therefore, it is a fit case warranting
extension of the benefit of probation to the appellant.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent- State: –
9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
State opposed the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant. He urged that the
offence under the Act of 2003 is one involving moral
turpitude, the legislation itself having been enacted
with the objective of curbing rampant cases of child
abuse in the State of Goa. Since the appellant has
been found guilty of the offence punishable under the
Act of 2003 by the trial Court and the High Court,
both of which have recorded concurrent findings of
fact, extending the benefit of probation to the
5
appellant would send a wrong message to the society.
He further contended that the High Court has already
taken a liberal approach by substantially reducing
the sentences imposed on the appellant, and hence,
no further leniency is warranted.
Analysis and Conclusion: –
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at bar and have gone
through the impugned judgments and the material
placed on record.
11. On examining the judgment of the trial Court, it
becomes apparent that the incident occurred on 1st
February, 2013 at about 08:00 a.m. 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 9th February, 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.
12. Section 8 of the Act of 2003 provides for
punishment for committing “child abuse” which is
defined under Section 2(m) of the said Act. These
6
provisions are being reproduced hereinbelow for the
sake of ready reference: –
2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,-
……
(m) Child abuse refers to the maltreatment,
whether habitual or not, of the child which
includes any of the following: —
(i) psychological and physical abuse, neglect,
cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment; (ii) any act by deeds or words
which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being; (iii)
unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for
survival such as food and shelter; or failure to
immediately give medical treatment to an injured
child resulting in serious impairment of his
growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death;
8. Child Abuse [and trafficking] –
(1) All children should be assured of a safe
environment. A safe environment is an
environment in which he/she will not be abused in
any way and his/her development will be nurtured.
(2) Whosoever commits any [child abuse or
sexual assault] as defined under this Act, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term that may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine of Rs.
1,00,000/-. Whoever commits any Grave Sexual
Assault shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term that shall not be less
than [ten years] but which may extend to life
imprisonment] and shall also be liable to a fine of
7
Rs. 2,00,000. Whoever commits incest shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term that shall not be less than ten years but
which may extend to life imprisonment and also a
fine which may extend to Rs.2,00,000/- [Statement
of the child victim shall be treated on par with the
statement of a child rape victim] under Section 375
of the IPC, as laid down by the Supreme Court of
India.
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. On a bare perusal of the above provisions, it is
evident that the offence of “child abuse” as provided
under section 8 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.
14. The only allegation against the appellant as
borne out from the statement of PW-3, the injured
child is that the appellant hit him with the school bag
belonging to his own son. Even if we accept the
injured child’s version in entirety, it would still not be
sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence
8
of “child abuse” punishable under Section 8 of the Act
of 2003.
15. 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.
16. Moreover, it also needs to be noted that Dr.
James Jose (PW-2), the Medical Officer who
examined the injured child on 9th February, 2013,
has admitted in his cross-examination that the
possibility of the injuries being caused due to a fall
cannot be ruled out.
17. Therefore, in view of the above facts and
circumstances, ex-facie the conviction of the
9
appellant for the offences punishable under Section
8 of the Act of 2003 is unsustainable.
18. Furthermore, we are of the view that 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. 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.
19. At this stage, we may note that 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.
10
20. Accordingly, 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.
21. 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.
22. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 26, 2025.
11
[ad_2]
Source link