Fine - The Legal Chamber

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Not Every Act Against a Child is “Abuse”

29Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Says Not Every Act Against a Child is “Abuse”

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, ruling that a single, incidental act of hitting a child with a school bag during a scuffle, absent evidence of deliberate cruelty or sustained maltreatment, does not meet the legal definition of "child abuse." The Court also set aside the conviction under Section 504 IPC, finding no intent to provoke a breach of peace. However, convictions under Sections 323 and 352 IPC were upheld, with the appellant granted probation. Facts Of The Case: On February 1, 2013, an incident occurred on the premises of St. Ann’s School in Goa involving the appellant, Santosh Khajnekar. He was alleged to have hit a child with a school bag belonging to his own son during a sudden altercation. The Fi...

Supreme Court Acquits Village Assistant: Merely Accepting Bribe Isn’t Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the main accused under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proven. However, the conviction of the co-accused was set aside due to the absence of a specific charge of abetment and lack of evidence proving his connivance or independent demand for the bribe. Facts Of The Case: The case involved two government officials, A. Karunanithi (A-1), the Village Administrative Officer, and P. Karunanithi (A-2), the Village Assistant. The complainant approached A-1 to obtain a necessary community certificate for a government job. On two separate occasions, A-1 demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant to process the application. The complainant subsequently lodged a formal...

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers

The Supreme Court of India, in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that in an appeal filed by an accused against conviction, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise revisional powers to enhance the sentence or convict on a charge for which the trial court acquitted the accused, especially when no appeal or revision was filed by the State, victim, or complainant. The Court emphasized the principle of no reformatio in peius, meaning an appellant should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal Facts Of The Case: Nagarajan, the appellant, was the neighbor of the deceased, Mariammal. On the night of July 11, 2003, the appellant entered Mariammal's room, hugged her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. Mariammal's mother-in-law intervened, scolded the appel...