Assault on Minor During Family Dispute Not ‘Child Abuse’: Bombay High Court Acquits Women Under Goa Children’s Act, Maintains Conviction Under IPC

“Solitary Act of Assault, Though Involving a Child, Cannot Be Criminalised as Child Abuse Under Goa Children’s Act” –  In a detailed and nuanced judgment on February 3, 2026, the Bombay High Court at Goa delivered a significant ruling on the limits of criminal liability under the Goa Children’s Act, holding that a single instance of physical assault on a minor during a quarrel does not amount to “child abuse” as defined under the statute. While affirming the conviction of the two female appellants under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt with an iron rod, the Court set aside their conviction under Section 504 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, clarifying that legislative intent was never to criminalise isolated family disputes involving children.

Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed: “To invoke the penal consequences of such a serious offence [under the Goa Children’s Act] in the absence of clear intention or conduct indicative of abuse would amount to an unwarranted expansion of the provision.”

The Court went further to remand the matter to the Children’s Court solely for determining whether the benefit of probation should be extended to the appellants under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as they were first-time offenders, convicted of an offence that carries a maximum punishment of three years.

High Court Narrows Interpretation of “Child Abuse”, Grants Probation Consideration to First-Time Offenders

The case stemmed from a family dispute in which the two female appellants, Anita Naik and Kunda Naik, allegedly assaulted a minor boy (their relative) on June 4, 2011, causing bleeding head injuries with an iron rod. The Children’s Court at Panaji had convicted them under Sections 324 and 504 IPC, and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, awarding a sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment along with fines including ₹1,00,000 under the Goa Children’s Act.

On appeal, the High Court partly allowed the appeal: affirming the conviction under IPC Section 324, acquitting the appellants under IPC Section 504 and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, and remanding the matter to consider probationary relief.

“Mere Use of Abusive Words Does Not Constitute Provocation to Breach of Peace” – Conviction Under Section 504 IPC Set Aside

The High Court found no evidence of specific intent or knowledge on the part of the appellants to provoke a breach of public peace as required under Section 504 IPC. Despite the fact that Appellant No. 2 had used abusive language before the assault, the Court noted:

“The use of the abusive words was a precursor to their immediate action of assault... not aimed at provoking breach of peace or public disorder.” [Para 38]

Accordingly, the conviction under Section 504 read with 34 IPC was set aside, clarifying that not every instance of verbal abuse meets the threshold for a criminal offence under that section.

“Solitary Incident Cannot Be Stretched to Fit Definition of Child Abuse” – Conviction Under Goa Children’s Act Also Overturned

The most pivotal part of the judgment lies in its interpretation of “child abuse” under the Goa Children’s Act, 2003. While the appellants had indeed assaulted a child, the Court held that Section 8(2) must be read with Section 2(m) of the Act, which defines child abuse as:

“...maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child... including cruelty, exploitation, deliberate ill-treatment or emotional maltreatment.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar v. State of Goa, the High Court ruled:

“The offence of child abuse necessarily presupposes an intention to cause harm... A sudden reaction in the heat of the moment, without any evidence of deliberate or sustained maltreatment, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of child abuse.” [Para 42]

It concluded that the incident, though unfortunate, was a “momentary act during a quarrel” and does not meet the statutory threshold of “abuse”. The conviction under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act was accordingly set aside, and the fine of ₹1,00,000 each was ordered to be refunded.

Section 324 IPC Conviction Sustained: Evidence of Injured Witnesses Found Reliable and Corroborated

Despite acquitting the appellants on the two other counts, the High Court had no hesitation in sustaining the conviction under Section 324 IPC. The minor victim (PW4) gave a consistent and cogent account, stating that while he was washing his face near a tap, Appellant No. 2 abused him and held him, while Appellant No. 1 struck him with an iron rod.

The Court noted:

“The deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection… The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.” [Para 26–27]

The medical evidence by PW3, Dr. Jaya Karmali, confirmed the injuries were consistent with a blunt object, and the injury report described two head lacerations and a shoulder abrasion, supporting the victim’s testimony. The defence's theory that the child had fallen accidentally was dismissed as improbable.

Eyewitness and Relative Testimony Not Disbelieved Merely Due to Relationship

The appellants attempted to discredit the prosecution by pointing out that most witnesses were relatives of the victim. The Court, however, reiterated well-settled law:

“A relative is not per se an interested witness… The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness.” [Para 30]

The Court found no animus or reason to believe that these relatives would falsely implicate the appellants. Moreover, non-examination of neutral public witnesses did not render the prosecution case unreliable, as PW4 (victim) and PW3 (doctor) provided sufficient evidence.

“Mandatory Duty to Consider Probation” – Trial Court Failed to Apply Probation of Offenders Act

Recognising that the offence under Section 324 IPC is punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment, the High Court held that the trial court had erred in not considering the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Referring to Chellammal & Anr. v. State and Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar, the Court reiterated that Section 4 casts a mandatory duty on courts to consider probation wherever applicable:

“Unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in Section 4 are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation.” [Para 28]

Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter to the Children’s Court for limited consideration on the question of probation, directing it to obtain a Probation Officer’s report and determine the probation period.

Partial Acquittal, Remand for Probation

Summing up, the High Court made it clear that while the physical assault was proven, it could not be equated to child abuse. The judgment is a progressive reaffirmation that not all conflicts involving minors merit criminal branding under child protection laws, especially when the act arises from family disputes and momentary lapses.

Date of Decision: February 3, 2026