Holding

A mere, unintentional blow with a school bag does not satisfy the statutory definition of child abuse, rendering the conviction under section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 and section 504 IPC unsustainable, and the appellant is entitled to probation for the remaining IPC convictions.

Summary

The appellant was convicted under sections 323, 352, 504 of the IPC and section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 for allegedly hitting a child with a school bag. The High Court reduced the sentences, but the appellant challenged the conviction for child abuse and the applicability of probation. The Supreme Court examined the statutory definition of "child abuse" under section 2(m) of the Goa Children’s Act and held that a trivial, unintentional blow does not meet the element of intentional cruelty or maltreatment required. It also found that the conviction under section 504 IPC was untenable as the act was not intended to provoke a breach of peace. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant of the child‑abuse charge and the section 504 offence, confirmed convictions for sections 323 and 352 IPC, and ordered release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant's act of hitting the child with a school bag constitutes "child abuse" under section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003.
Whether the conviction under section 504 IPC for intent to provoke breach of peace is sustainable.
Whether the appellant is eligible for probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Legislation cited

Goa Children’s Act, 2003s. 2(m), s. 8, s. 8(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 323, s. 352, s. 504
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958s. 4

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether conviction of appellant for the offences punishable u/s.8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 is sustainable; whether the appellant deserves to be given benefit under provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Headnotes† Goa Children’s Act, 2003 ss.323, 352, 504 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – An FIR came to be lodged against the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.323, 352 and 504 of the IPC and u/s.8 of the Act of 2003 – Appellant was convicted and sentenced by the President, Children’s Court –

Subjects

Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003Child abuseBreach of peaceReleasing on ProbationMaltreatment

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2100 : 2025 INSC 1041

Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar
v.
The State of Goa
(Criminal Appeal No. 1991 of 2023)
26 August 2025
[Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether conviction of appellant for the offences punishable u/s.8 of
the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 is sustainable; whether the appellant
deserves to be given benefit under provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958.

Headnotes†
Goa Children’s Act, 2003 – s.8 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323,
352, 504 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – An FIR came to
be lodged against the appellant for the offences punishable
u/ss.323, 352 and 504 of the IPC and u/s.8 of the Act of 2003 –
Appellant was convicted and sentenced by the President,
Children’s Court – However, the High Court reduced the
sentences awarded to the appellant for the substantive
offences as simple Imprisonment of 10 days u/s.323 IPC;
Fine of Rs.500/- and in default simple imprisonment of 2
days u/s.352 IPC; simple Imprisonment of 10 days u/s.504
IPC; simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to
pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 5 months, u/s.8(2) of the Goa Children’s
Act, 2003 – Correctness:
Held: 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 the
injured child’s version is accepted in entirety, it would still not
be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence of “child
abuse” punishable u/s.8 of the Act of 2003 – A simple blow with
a school bag, without any evidence of deliberate or sustained
maltreatment, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of child
abuse – Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances,

* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2101

Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. The State of Goa

ex-facie the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable
u/s.8 of the Act of 2003 is unsustainable – Both the Courts below
committed grave error in convicting the appellant for the offence
punishable u/s.504 IPC – 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 offence punishable
u/s.323 IPC carries maximum punishment of simple imprisonment
for one year whereas offence punishable u/s.352 IPC carries
maximum punishment of imprisonment for three months – Thus,
the mandatory provision of s.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 would apply and the appellant deserves to be given benefit
thereof – Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted for the charge of
the offence punishable u/s.8(2) of the Act of 2003 and s.504 of
the IPC – The impugned judgments are set aside to this extent –
However, his conviction is confirmed for the offences punishable
u/ss.323 and 352 of the IPC – The appellant is directed to be
released on probation upon furnishing bonds before the jurisdictional
trial Court to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one
year. [Paras 14, 15, 17-21]

Goa Children’s Act, 2003 – s.8 – Child abuse:
Held: On a bare perusal of the provision, it is evident that the offence
of “child abuse” as provided u/s.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. [Para 13]

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Goa Children’s Act, 2003.

List of Keywords
Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003; Child abuse; Breach
of peace; Releasing on Probation; Maltreatment.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1991 of 2023
2102 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in CRLA No. 10 of 2017

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Ms. Pallavi Daem, Ms. Gunjan Kumari.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Ms. Shikha Sarin, Ms. Har Karam Jot Kaur.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

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: -

Sections Punishment
323 of the Indian Penal Code,
Simple Imprisonment of 6 months.
18602
Fine of Rs. 500/- and in default
352 IPC
simple imprisonment of 2 days

Simple Imprisonment of 10
504 IPC
months

Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 years
Section 8(2) of the Goa and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- ,
Children’s Act, 2003 in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months.

The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

1 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘trial Court’
2 For Short, IPC
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2103

Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. The State of Goa

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 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

Fine of Rs. 500/- and in default simple
352 IPC
imprisonment of 2 days

504 IPC Simple Imprisonment of 10 days

Simple Imprisonment for a period
Section 8(2) of the Goa of 15 days and to pay fine of
Children’s Act, 2003 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 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.

3 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘High Court’
4 Hereinafter, Referred to as ‘Act of 2003’
2104 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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 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
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2105

Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. The State of Goa

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 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]
2106 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and shall also be liable to a fine of 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 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.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2107

Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. The State of Goa

17. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, ex-facie
the conviction of the 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.
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.

Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan