Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Law of Infancy (Ss. 82 and 83 of IPC)
In this article we shall study the Law of Infancy under Ss. 82 and 83 of IPC.
List of Sub-Topics:
Sections 82 and 85 also called Law of Infancy confer immunity from criminal liability on child offenders. It is presumed that a child below the age of seven years is doli incapax. It means that such a child is incapable of doing a criminal act and cannot form the necessary mens rea to commit a crime. This presumption is conclusive and it emanates from the recognition of the fact that he lacks the adequate mental ability to understand the nature and consequences of his act and thereby an ability to form the required mens rea. Even though there may be the clearest evidence that the child causes an actus reus with mens rea, he cannot be held guilty once it appears that he, at the time he committed the act, was below the seven years. Thus, in legal sense both boys & girls were held to be infants under the age of 07 years & were immune from punishment under Law, they are under a natural disability of distinguishing between good & evil.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Criteria for Distinguishing Liability of a Child in India:
- S.82 of the IPC grants absolute immunity to children under the age of seven.
- Children aged seven to twelve have qualified immunity under S.83 of the IPC, with the mental ability of the child being the determining factor.
- The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 governs children aged twelve to eighteen.
Section 82 IPC:
Act of a Child Under Seven Years of Age:
‘Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Ingredients of Section 82 of IPC:
- Act is done by a child
- Under seven years of age
Actus rea and mens rea are two essential elements to impose criminal liability on accused. The act is exempted under the code from criminal liability where the accused is not charged of the crime committed. As the act shows absence of mens rea i.e., guilty mind. Thus, Section 82 of IPC exempts a child below 7 years of age from criminal liability.
In Quean v. Lukhini Agradanini 1874 case, the Court held that merely the evidence of that age would be a conclusive proof of the innocence of a child and would “ipso-facto” be an answer to any charge against him.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Section 83 IPC:
Act of a Child Above Seven and Under Twelve of Immature Understanding.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Ingredients of Section 83 of IPC:
- Act is done by a child between 7-12 years of age
- Has no sufficient maturity of understanding
- To judge the nature and consequences of his conduct is no offence
Section 83 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under 12, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion. In a child’s life the period between 7 and 12 years of age is rather the twilight period of transition to a minimal workable level of understanding of things in the firmament of a worldly affairs. And that is why, both the IPC, 1860 and the Oaths Act have made special provisions for children below 12 years in respect of matters dependent on a minimal power of understanding.
The proof of attainment of sufficient maturity can be derived at by a court on the consideration of all the circumstances of the case. It can be inferred from the nature of the act and his subsequent conduct and other allied factors such as his demeanour and appearance in the court. It need not be proved by the prosecution by positive evidence.
In Ulla Mahapatra v. The King, AIR 1950 Ori 261case, where a boy eleven and below twelve picked up his knife and advanced towards another. He threatened the other by saying that he would cut him into bits and did actually what he said. It was held that he was having sufficient maturity of understanding, because he did what he intended.
In Abdul Satar v. The Crown, AIR 1949 Lah 51 case, where two accused both under the age of twelve, broke through the locks of two stores and walked inside with the purpose to steal. They used the defence of a lack of maturity. The court ruled that the accused’s behaviour of opening the shop’s locks demonstrates his maturity level.
In Walters v. Lunt, [1951] 2 All ER 645 case, where the parents of the child aged 7 years were charged with receiving from their son a childs tricycle knowing it to have been stolen by their child. It was held that the parents must be acquitted on the ground that, since the child could not steel the tricycle was not stolen property.
In Makhulshah v. State, (1886) 1 Weir 470 case, where the accused purchased for one anna, from a child aged six years two pieces of cloth valued at 15 annas. which the child had taken from the house of a third person. It was held that, assuming that a charge of an offence of dishonest reception of property (Section 411) could not be sustained, owing to the incapacity of the child to commit an offence, the accused was guilty of criminal misappropriation. If he knew that the property belonged to the child’s guardians and dishonestly appropriated it to his own use.
Beyond the age of 12, there is no immunity from criminal liability, even if the offender is a person of undeveloped and incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of his act. All these juveniles in conflict with law is now governed by Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.The perusal of JJ act makes clear that it is not giving any punishment for juveniles but at the same time it is not exonerating the juveniles from criminal liability. But it would appear that something akin to immunity is provided to delinquent juveniles under this Act.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Conclusion:
A child is considered innocent, and any wrongful act done by a child cannot be said to be a crime or an offence as it lacks mens rea (guilty mind). Sections 82 and 85 also called Law of Infancy confer immunity from criminal liability on child offenders. These sections follow the principle of doli incapax, which provides that a child is considered incapable of forming the intent to commit a crime or tort. In India, infant defense is still in its preliminary stages. Even though the courts have taken a progressive position. There have been instances of severe crimes that have compelled the judiciary and even the legislature to take stringent action, such as the juvenile amendment in 2015.