Summary and Analysis of Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar vs The State of Goa

1. Heading of the Judgment

Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar vs. The State of Goa
Citation: 2025 INSC 1041
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: August 26, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The case involved the following laws:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  Section 352: Punishment for assault or use of criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation.
  Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.

• Goa Children’s Act, 2003:
  Section 2(m): Definition of "Child Abuse".
  Section 8(2): Punishment for committing child abuse.

• Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
  Section 4: Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Santosh Sahadev Khajnekar
  Respondent: The State of Goa

• Origin of the Case: The appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa dated November 11, 2022.

• High Court's Decision: The High Court had partly allowed the appellant's appeal by substantially reducing the sentences awarded by the Trial Court but upheld his conviction.

• Trial Court's Decision: The Children’s Court in Goa had convicted the appellant on January 6, 2017, and sentenced him on January 20, 2017, for offences under Sections 323, 352, 504 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act.

• Supreme Court's Final Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It acquitted the appellant of the major charges under the Goa Children’s Act and Section 504 IPC. It upheld his conviction for minor offences under Sections 323 and 352 IPC but released him on probation instead of sending him to jail.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court's judgment focused on interpreting the scope of "child abuse" under the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, and determining whether a single, minor act of assault during a quarrel qualifies as such.

Background of the Case

The incident occurred on February 1, 2013, in the premises of St. Ann’s School in Goa. The appellant, Santosh Khajnekar, was alleged to have hit a child with a school bag belonging to his own son during a scuffle. An FIR was lodged after a delay of eight days, on February 9, 2013, charging the appellant under Sections 323, 352, and 504 of the IPC and the serious charge of "child abuse" under Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act.

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant's counsel argued that:

1. The act of casually hitting a child with a school bag during a sudden scuffle was unintentional and did not fall within the legal definition of "child abuse," which implies sustained maltreatment.

2. The appellant, a labourer and the sole breadwinner for his family, had already undergone some days in custody and would suffer grave hardship if forced to complete the sentence 13 years after the incident.

3. Since all offences were punishable with less than 7 years of imprisonment, the mandatory provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, applied, and he deserved to be released on probation.

State's Arguments

The State opposed the appeal, arguing that:

1. The offence under the Goa Children’s Act involves moral turpitude, and the legislation was enacted to curb child abuse.

2. The trial court and High Court had recorded concurrent findings of fact convicting the appellant.

3. The High Court had already shown leniency by drastically reducing the sentences, and no further mercy was warranted.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Court conducted a thorough analysis, which became the core of its judgment:

a) Interpretation of "Child Abuse": The Court meticulously examined the definition of "child abuse" under Section 2(m) of the Goa Children’s Act. It noted that the definition includes terms like "maltreatment," "cruelty," "psychological and physical abuse," and acts that "debase, degrade or demean" the child's dignity. The Court held that the legislative intent was to protect children from serious, deliberate abuse and exploitation, not to criminalize every minor or isolated act that occurs during a sudden quarrel. A simple blow with a school bag, without evidence of deliberate, sustained, or cruel maltreatment, does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence.

b) Acquittal under Section 504 IPC: The Court also examined the conviction under Section 504 IPC (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace). It held that for this section to apply, the accused's language or act must be intended to provoke a breach of peace. The Court found that the alleged act of the appellant did not meet this standard and ex-facie could not be construed as intended to provoke a breach of peace. Therefore, this conviction was also unsustainable.

c) Benefit of Probation for Minor Offences: The Court upheld the appellant's conviction for the minor offences of voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323 IPC) and assault (Section 352 IPC). However, noting that these offences carry a maximum punishment of one year and three months respectively, the Court invoked Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Considering that this was the appellant's only offence and that he was the sole breadwinner for his family, the Court held it was a fit case to release him on probation instead of sending him back to jail.

Final Conclusion and Ruling

The Supreme Court concluded as follows:

1. Acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 and Section 504 of the IPC. The judgments of the courts below were set aside to this extent.

2. Upheld the conviction for the offences under Sections 323 and 352 of the IPC.

3. Instead of a jail sentence, the appellant was ordered to be released on probation. He was directed to furnish a bond before the trial court within three months to keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year.

In essence, the Supreme Court drew a crucial distinction between a serious act of "child abuse" and a minor, isolated act of assault, narrowing the application of the special law to its intended purpose of preventing sustained cruelty and exploitation of children.