SC sets aside conviction of labourer under Goa Children’s Act, says incident ‘trivial’

New Delhi, Aug 26 The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the conviction of a labourer under the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, who was accused of casually hitting a child with his own son’s school bag during a quarrel.

Partially allowing the criminal appeal, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta said that a “trivial or isolated incident” could not amount to child abuse.

“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,” observed the Justice Karol-led Bench.

Referring to the allegation that the appellant had struck the child with a bag, it 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.”

“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.” In its judgment, the apex court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act and Section 504 IPC, while affirming his conviction for simple hurt (Section 323 IPC) and criminal assault (Section 352 IPC).

The Supreme Court said that the courts below “committed grave error” for convicting him under Section 504 IPC (intentional insult with intent 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,” it ruled.

The appellant was convicted in 2017 by the Children’s Court in Goa.

In 2022, the Bombay High Court reduced the sentence but upheld the conviction.

Taking note of the submission that the appellant had already spent some days in custody and that the incident dated back to 2013, the Justice Karol-led Bench extended to him the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. “Instead of making him to undergo the sentence immediately, the appellant shall be released on probation upon furnishing bonds… to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year,” ordered the apex court.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor