LexSANTOSH SAHADEV KHAJNEKAR versus THE STATE OF GOA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.