PANAJI
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the offence of child abuse cannot be stretched to cover minor or incidental acts involving children, such as a blow during a quarrel.
A two-judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta said that for an act to amount to child abuse, it must be marked by a clear intention to cause harm or by cruelty, exploitation or ill-treatment.
It also held that anything short of deliberate cruelty falls outside the law’s ambit, warning that imposing serious criminal penalties without evidence of such intent would unduly expand the scope of the law.
“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,” the order reads, as it was pronounced in connection with a scuffle at a Thivim school in February 2013.
“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 trial court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 352 (use of criminal force) and 504 (provoke a breach of peace) of the IPC and also under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment under GCA besides smaller concurrent sentences for other offences.
On appeal, the High Court of Bombay at Goa reduced the sentence in 2022, holding that the Act did not warrant a severe punishment. However, it upheld the conviction under all provisions.
In the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that a single blow with a school bag without intention to harm would not amount to child abuse under the Act.
The State opposed leniency, stressing that the GCA was enacted to address rampant child abuse in the State and granting probation would undermine its deterrent effect.
The Bench held that the GCA provision on child abuse was intended to address cruelty, exploitation, or sustained maltreatment, and not incidental acts arising from a scuffle.
The conviction under Sections 323 and 352 of the IPC was upheld, while the conviction under Section 504 was set aside. The Court directed that he be released on probation.
