Isabella Mariam

The Bombay High Court at Goa, Single Bench of Justice Sreeram V. Shirsat on Tuesday (February 3) partly allowed an appeal by two women relatives convicted for allegedly striking a child on the head with an iron rod, causing a bleeding injury. The Court set aside their conviction for intentional insult and acquitted them of the charge under the Goa Children’s Act, holding that a solitary incident of assault, without material indicating deliberate or sustained maltreatment, does not constitute “child abuse” under the 2003 law. While the conviction for causing hurt with a weapon was upheld, the matter was remitted to the Children’s Court to consider release on probation, and any fine paid for the Children’s Act offence was directed to be refunded.

The criminal appeal arose from a judgment and order passed by the Children’s Court for the State of Goa, Panaji, whereby the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants assaulted a minor with an iron rod while he was washing his face near a water tap, resulting in bleeding head injuries. The victim was taken to Goa Medical College for treatment, following which a complaint was lodged.

Also Read: Armed Forces Tribunal Can Hear Service Officer’s Appeal Against ICC POSH Findings: Supreme Court

During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the victim, his family members, a neighbour, the medical officer, and the investigating officer. Medical evidence indicated simple injuries caused by a blunt object. The defence denied the allegations, claiming false implication due to a property dispute and suggesting the injuries were caused by a fall. The trial court convicted the appellants on all charges. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present appeal challenging the findings, the appreciation of evidence, and the applicability of the statutory provisions invoked.

The Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, observed that “PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, have all corroborated each other on material points.” It recorded that “from the analysis of these witnesses, more particularly the injured witness, PW4 (victim), it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was assaulted by the Appellants.”

While examining the charge under Section 324 IPC, the Court stated that “the prosecution has successfully proved that the Appellants, with common intention, have voluntarily caused hurt to the victim by means of a weapon, i.e. by iron rod.” It therefore recorded that “the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly convicted the Appellants under Section 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.”

However, in relation to Section 504 IPC, the Court stated that “the offence of 504 IPC has not been made out.” It recorded that “there is no evidence on record to suggest that the Accused had any specific intent to provoke or knowledge that their actions will cause breach of peace.” The Court further observed that “the use of the abusive words was a precursor to their immediate action of assault.”

On the applicability of Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, the Court observed that "I am of the opinion that 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 co-relate 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.”

The Court further stated that "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. Therefore, in my opinion, taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Children's Court has erred in convicting the Appellants under Section 8(2) of The Goa Children's Act, 2003 and therefore deserve to be acquitted for the said offence.”

Regarding sentencing, the Court recorded that “the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC carries a maximum punishment of three years.” It further stated that “the mandatory provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act would apply.”

The Court directed that “the Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the Appellants passed by the Children’s Court for the State of Goa, at Panaji in Special Case No. 55/2011 vide Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2016 under Section 504 r/w 34 of IPC is set aside and the Appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 504 r/w 34 of IPC.”

“The Appellants are also acquitted under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act.” It directed that “the conviction and sentence of the Appellants under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC is hereby confirmed.”

Also Read: Insurers Must Exercise Highest Professionalism And Diligence In Vetting Claim History Before Accepting Policy Portability: Bombay High Court

While maintaining the conviction under Section 324 r/w 34 of the IPC, the Court directed that “the matter is remanded to the Children’s Court for limited consideration on the question of grant of probation to the Appellants upon obtaining a report of the relevant Probation Officer and for fixing the period of probation.”

 as the Appellants are acquitted for the charge of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of The Goa Children’s Act, 2003, the fine amount if paid by the Appellants, be refunded to the Appellants within a period of eight weeks from today.” It also directed that “the Appeal is disposed of and pending applications, if any, are disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants:  Mr. Abhijit P. Gosavi, Advocate (Legal Aid Scheme), along with Ms. Shweta S. Shetgaonkar, Advocate

For the Respondent:  Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Anita Naik & Another v. State of Goa                                                       

Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-GOA:163

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2016

Bench: Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat