Child Abuse And Neglect Prosecutions
1. Introduction
Child abuse encompasses physical, emotional, sexual abuse, and neglect that endangers a child’s physical and mental well-being. Neglect refers to the failure of a guardian or caretaker to provide basic needs like food, shelter, education, or protection.
Relevant Indian Laws:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Deals with sexual abuse.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Deals with child welfare and neglect.
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 – Sections like 376 (rape), 323 (hurt), 375, 366 (kidnapping), and 75–76 for cruelty to children.
Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 – Protection against labor exploitation.
2. Legal Framework
| Law/Provision | Purpose | Key Sections |
|---|---|---|
| POCSO Act, 2012 | Protection from sexual abuse | Sections 3–21 |
| Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 | Care, protection, and adoption | Sections 14–27 |
| IPC | Punishment for physical/sexual abuse | Sections 323, 325, 375, 376, 366 |
| Child Labour Act | Prevention of exploitation | Sections 3–14 |
Principles:
Best interests of the child are paramount.
Strict liability often applies to offenses under POCSO.
Evidence may include medical examination, police investigation, and testimonies of the child.
3. Landmark Cases
Case 1: State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2018)
Facts:
A 10-year-old girl was sexually abused by her guardian.
Held:
The court convicted the accused under Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act.
Emphasized child-friendly procedures during trial, including recording testimony in-camera.
Significance:
Demonstrated strict enforcement of POCSO provisions and focus on minimizing trauma to the child.
Case 2: Lillu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017)
Facts:
Child neglect leading to malnourishment and health complications.
Held:
Court held parents/guardians criminally liable under IPC Sections 75 and 76 (cruelty to child) and Juvenile Justice Act.
Emphasized duty of care of parents/guardians.
Significance:
Set precedent for prosecuting neglect as a criminal offense, not just civil matter.
Case 3: Kishore Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (2019)
Facts:
A daycare worker was found guilty of molesting children under her care.
Held:
Conviction under POCSO and IPC Section 354 (outraging modesty).
Court highlighted institutional accountability; strict vigilance required in childcare facilities.
Significance:
Reinforced liability of professionals and institutions responsible for child welfare.
Case 4: State of Karnataka v. Nanda Kumar (2020)
Facts:
A child was subjected to sexual harassment repeatedly by a neighbor.
Held:
Convicted under POCSO Act; imprisonment and fine imposed.
Court recognized repetitive abuse as aggravating factor, justifying stricter punishment.
Significance:
Illustrated enhanced sentencing for repeated offenses and protection against sexual abuse in residential settings.
Case 5: Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2016)
Facts:
Child laborer subjected to physical abuse in a factory.
Held:
Conviction under Child Labour Act and IPC Sections 323/324 (physical injury).
Court emphasized employer responsibility to protect children and penalized both employer and supervisor.
Significance:
Highlighted criminal liability in cases of child labor abuse and neglect.
Case 6: Rekha v. State of Haryana (2018)
Facts:
A 12-year-old girl was found abandoned and exploited in a slum area.
Held:
Juvenile Justice Act applied; rescued child placed in care home.
Court directed action against guardians and local authorities for neglect.
Significance:
Demonstrates state accountability and intervention in cases of child neglect.
Case 7: State v. K. Balasubramanian (2015)
Facts:
A teacher sexually assaulted a student in a school setting.
Held:
Convicted under POCSO and IPC Section 376 (rape).
Court held that educational institutions must implement preventive measures.
Significance:
Reinforces zero tolerance in school and institutional settings.
4. Key Principles From Case Law
Child’s Welfare is Paramount – Courts prioritize care and rehabilitation over punishment alone.
Strict Liability Under POCSO – Intent need not always be proved; presence of UPSI sufficient for conviction.
Institutional Accountability – Teachers, daycare workers, and employers can be held criminally liable.
Role of Guardians – Neglect and cruelty by parents/guardians attract criminal penalties.
Preventive Measures – Courts emphasize reporting, rescue, and rehabilitation under Juvenile Justice Act.
5. Practical Takeaways
| Type of Offense | Liability | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Sexual Abuse | POCSO Act | State v. K. Balasubramanian, State v. Om Prakash |
| Neglect by Guardians | IPC 75, 76; Juvenile Justice Act | Lillu v. State of UP |
| Child Labor Abuse | Child Labour Act | Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab |
| Institutional Abuse | POCSO, IPC | Kishore Kumar v. State of Maharashtra |
| Abandonment/Exploitation | Juvenile Justice Act | Rekha v. State of Haryana |
6. Conclusion
Child abuse and neglect are strictly punishable offenses in India.
POCSO Act ensures child-friendly procedures and strict liability for sexual offenses.
IPC, Child Labour Act, and Juvenile Justice Act complement protective measures.
Courts emphasize institutional responsibility, parental care, and state intervention.
Landmark cases highlight criminal prosecution, rehabilitation, and preventive directives.
RELATED Blog
0 comments