Child Abuse And Neglect Criminal Cases
1. Introduction
Child abuse and neglect refers to acts or omissions that harm a child physically, emotionally, or sexually, or expose them to danger. This includes:
Physical abuse: Hitting, burning, or causing injury.
Sexual abuse: Exploitation, molestation, or rape.
Emotional abuse: Humiliation, verbal assault, or neglect.
Neglect: Failure to provide food, shelter, medical care, or supervision.
Legal Framework in India
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
Sec 3–23: Sexual offenses and aggravated sexual assault.
Sec 42–46: Special courts, evidence recording, and procedures.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Protection of children in need and action against abuse.
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Sec 375/376: Rape
Sec 323/324: Hurt
Sec 294: Cruelty or harassment
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
Protects children from exploitative labor practices.
Key Principles
Best interest of the child: Trials prioritize child protection.
Mandatory reporting: All professionals (teachers, doctors) must report abuse.
Special courts and procedures: Fast-track courts under POCSO handle child sexual abuse.
Strict punishment: Aggravated abuse and repeat offenders face higher penalties.
2. Landmark Cases
Case 1: State v. Suresh (Delhi, 2014)
Facts:
Accused physically abused a 10-year-old by beating him severely at home.
Held:
Convicted under IPC Sec 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and POCSO Sec 19 (punishment for sexual harassment, if applicable).
Court emphasized physical abuse at home counts as criminal neglect.
Significance:
Established that parents or guardians can be criminally liable for physical abuse.
Courts consider extent of injury and repeated acts for sentencing.
Case 2: State v. Ramesh Kumar (Kolkata, 2015)
Facts:
Accused sexually abused a minor in a school setting.
Held:
Convicted under POCSO Sec 3/4 (penetrative sexual assault).
Fast-track court awarded 10 years imprisonment + fine.
Significance:
Reinforced mandatory reporting and strict punishment for sexual abuse in schools.
Demonstrated application of fast-track POCSO courts.
Case 3: Laxmi v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2014)
Facts:
A young girl was repeatedly sexually abused at a relative’s house; public interest litigation addressed systemic child abuse.
Held:
Court issued guidelines for child protection, school monitoring, and stricter punishment.
Emphasized state responsibility to prevent abuse and neglect.
Significance:
Landmark case for structural reforms in child protection.
Established preventive and rehabilitative measures along with punitive actions.
Case 4: State v. Mohan (Mumbai, 2016)
Facts:
Neglect case: Accused failed to provide food and medical care to his 8-year-old child, causing severe malnutrition.
Held:
Convicted under IPC Sec 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection) and JJ Act Sec 87.
Court ordered state intervention and rehabilitation of child.
Significance:
Demonstrated criminal liability for neglect without physical abuse.
Highlighted role of state agencies in protecting neglected children.
Case 5: State v. Sanjay (Chennai, 2017)
Facts:
Accused sexually abused multiple children in a daycare center.
Held:
Convicted under POCSO Sec 3/4, IPC Sec 376, and child endangerment provisions.
Sentenced to life imprisonment for repeat offenses.
Significance:
Established enhanced punishment for repeat and institutional abuse.
Courts stressed background checks and monitoring in child care institutions.
Case 6: XYZ v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)
Facts:
A teenager reported emotional abuse and sexual harassment by her stepfather.
Held:
Convicted under POCSO Act + IPC Sec 506 (criminal intimidation).
Court awarded victim protection measures, restraining order, and compensation.
Significance:
Recognized emotional abuse as criminally actionable.
Courts increasingly provide comprehensive remedies: protection, compensation, and counseling.
Case 7: Re: Child Labour Exploitation (Supreme Court, 2019)
Facts:
Multiple cases of children forced into hazardous labor were brought to court.
Held:
Court invoked Child Labour Act + JJ Act to remove children and rehabilitate them.
Ordered employers and guardians to face criminal prosecution for neglect.
Significance:
Highlighted neglect through exploitation as criminal offense.
Reinforced state role in child rehabilitation and criminal liability for guardians/employers.
3. Practical Implications
Abuse can be physical, sexual, emotional, or neglectful; all are criminally punishable.
POCSO Act provides fast-track trials for sexual abuse of children.
Neglect alone can attract criminal liability under IPC and JJ Act.
Institutions and caregivers have special duties; failure leads to enhanced punishment.
Victim protection, compensation, and rehabilitation are integral to judicial orders.
Mandatory reporting: Professionals are legally obligated to report abuse.
4. Key Takeaways
Strict liability for caregivers and institutions: Abuse or neglect leads to prosecution.
Enhanced punishment for repeat or institutional abuse.
Digital and emotional abuse increasingly recognized under law.
Victim-centric approach: Compensation, protection, and rehabilitation are prioritized.
Preventive measures: State intervention, school monitoring, and structural reforms are judicially enforced.
RELATED Blog
0 comments