Solitary Quarrel Incident Without Cruelty Or Deliberate Harm Not “Child Abuse”: Bombay High Court Acquits Accused Under Goa Children’s Act

The Court clarified that the statute is intended to address serious forms of cruelty or deliberate harm against children and cannot be extended to incidental acts committed in the heat of the moment.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the conviction recorded by the Children’s Court, which had found the accused guilty under provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act.

A Bench of Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed: “…the present case in hand being a solitary incident does not satisfy the essential ingredient of 'Child Abuse’. It cannot be attracted to every trivial or isolated incident involving a child, but must necessarily correlate with acts involving cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment, or conduct intended to cause harm, and its 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”.

Background

The prosecution's case alleged that a minor child sustained head injuries after being assaulted with an iron rod during an altercation involving neighbours. The incident resulted in the registration of offences, including voluntarily causing hurt and child abuse.

The Children’s Court convicted the accused and imposed imprisonment and fines under the Indian Penal Code and the Goa Children’s Act.

The accused appealed, contending that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, that discrepancies existed regarding the timing and circumstances of the incident, and that the statutory ingredients of child abuse were not established.

The State defended the conviction, arguing that the injured child’s testimony was corroborated by medical and eyewitness evidence.

Court’s Observations

The High Court undertook a re-appreciation of the evidence and held that the testimony of the injured witness was credible and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses. Relying on established principles governing the appreciation of injured witness testimony, the Court found that the assault resulting in simple injuries was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, justifying a conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

However, while examining the applicability of the Goa Children’s Act, the Court emphasised the statutory definition of child abuse and the legislative intent underlying the provision. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated that child abuse cannot be stretched to cover every trivial or isolated incident involving a child. It must necessarily involve cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment or conduct intended to cause harm that goes beyond a momentary quarrel.

The Court observed that the incident in question, though involving an assault, did not demonstrate sustained cruelty or deliberate maltreatment aimed at exploiting or abusing the child in the statutory sense. The evidence showed a sudden altercation culminating in injury, not a pattern or intent amounting to child abuse.

Justice Shirsat held: “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 sudden reaction in the heat of the moment… does not satisfy the essential ingredients of child abuse.”

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Children’s Court erred in extending the penal consequences of Section 8(2) to facts that did not meet the statutory threshold.

The Court also examined the conviction under Section 504 IPC and found that while abusive language was used, there was insufficient evidence of intent to provoke a breach of peace, leading to acquittal on that count.

On sentencing, the Court noted that the offence under Section 324 IPC attracted a maximum punishment of three years. Considering the lapse of time, the familial relationship between the parties, and the absence of subsequent incidents, the Court held that the question of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act deserved consideration and remanded the matter to the trial court for that limited purpose.

Conclusion

The High Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the conviction under Section 504 IPC and acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, holding that the incident did not amount to statutory child abuse.

The conviction for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC was confirmed. The matter was remanded to the Children’s Court solely to consider the grant of probation after obtaining a report from the probation officer.

Fines paid under the Children’s Act were directed to be refunded.

Cause Title: Anita Naik & Anr. v. State of Goa (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:163)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocate Abhijit P. Gosavi (Legal Aid) with Advocate Shweta S. Shetgaonkar

Respondents: Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment