Sandeep Mehta Justice - 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...

Abuse of Legal Process? : Supreme Court Quashes Second Petition , Not Allowed Without New Grounds

The Supreme Court ruled that a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is impermissible if based on grounds available during the first petition, as it effectively amounts to a review barred under Section 362 CrPC. The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, preventing abuse of legal process through successive petitions. The judgment reaffirmed that change in circumstances or new grounds must be demonstrated for entertaining subsequent quashing petitions, ensuring judicial discipline and preventing harassment via repetitive litigation. The High Court's order allowing a second petition was set aside, restoring the criminal complaint for trial. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute between the appellant, M.C. Ravikumar, and the respon...

Supreme Court Ruling : Doubt Over Witness Claims Leads to Acquittal in TN Murder Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, overturning their conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, due to unreliable eyewitness testimonies. The Court emphasized the need for cautious scrutiny of related witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and highlighted improbabilities in their accounts, including the unrealistic timeline of events. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The judgments of the Trial Court and High Court were set aside, underscoring the principle that doubts in prosecution cases must benefit the accused. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the murder of Edison Suvisedha Muthu, a habitual drunkard with a criminal record, including detention under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The prosecution alleged that on 14.04.20...