INTRODUCTION

Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 containing Sections 76 to 106 deals with provisions
for General Exceptions. A person committing an offence under the circumstances and exceptions
mentioned in Chapter IV is excused from criminal liability and punishment shall not be imposed
upon him in such case. Sections 82 and 83 of IPC exempt the wrongful act of a child from
criminal liability. Section 82 deals with wrongful acts of child under 7 years of age while Section
83 deals with acts of child above 7 and under 12 of immature understanding.
SECTION 82 OF IPC

Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code states that Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under
seven years of age. This section exempts the wrongful act of a child under seven years from criminal
liability. This presumption is based on legal maxim which is called Doli incapax. which means that
deemed in capable of forming the intent to commit a crime or taught especially by reason of age
because of their age they are under a natural disability of distinguish between good and evil.

According to Section 82 of the IPC a child below 7 years of age gets a complete defense from
any kind of criminal liability. The reason for this is the principle of 'Doli incapax', a child below
the age of 7 cannot be held guilty for any offence because of the assumption that he cannot draw
a distinction between 'right' and 'wrong'. It works under the assumption that a child below 7 lacks
the ability to understand the nature and consequences of his act and therefore cannot form the
required Mens rea. This is a complete defense and cannot be taken away in any circumstances.
No sort of evidence to prove that the child could understand the nature or consequences of his act
will act as a rebuttal.

INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 82 OF IPC

1. The act must have been done by child

2. The child must have been under 7 years

3. Absolute in capacity for a crime under 7 years of age.

QUEEN VS LUKHINI AGRADANINI

In this case it was held at merely the evidence of that age would be a conclusive proof of the
innocence of a child and would ipso factor be and answer to any charge against him.

Krishna Bhagwan vs State of Bihar

Patna High court upheld that if he accused of an offence during the trial has attend the age of 7
year or at the time of decision has attend the age of 7 year can be convicted if he is able to
understand the nature of the offence.
SECTION 83 OF IPC

Section 83 in The Indian Penal Code states that Act of a child above seven and under twelve of
immature understanding. –“Nothing is an offense 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”.

This section gives a qualified immunity. The burden of proof lies on the child to prove that he
was between the age of seven and twelve and that during the act, he was unaware of the
consequences. The prosecution needs to prove that the child committed the act with full
awareness of its consequences. That a reasonable Mens rea was present with Actus reus.

INGREDIENT OF SECTION 83

1. The act must have done by child

2. The child must have been between 7 to 12 years

3. The child must not have sufficient maturity of understanding

4. To judge of the nature and consequence of conduct.

MATURITY OF UNDERSTANDING

Section 83 stipulates that when a child accused of an offence is above 7 and under 12 years, the
court has to ascertain if the child has sufficient maturity of understanding so as to understand the
nature and consequence of his conduct. proof of attainment of sufficient understanding can be
arrived at by a court on the consideration of his act.
The question is arise how to identify the child has sufficient maturity or not. So there are some
factor to identify the qualified maturity.

The nature of act done,

Subsequent conduct of the offender,

Demeanor and appearance of the offender in the court.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

In the case of Hirelal Mallick v. State of Bihar

A 12-year-old boy along with two other people were convicted of murdering a person. The 12-
year-old had struck the neck of the deceased with a sword and ran away after the act. There was
no evidence to suggest that he did not have the maturity or understanding of the consequences of
his act. The High court convicted the child under section 326 of IPC.

In the case of Partap Singh v. State of Jharkhand

The question of the date which was to be reckoned in determining the age of the child was
brought to the court. The court held that the date of the commission of an offence was the
relevant date to determine the age of the alleged offender and not the date on which the accused
is brought before the court.
INDIAN V. ENGLISH LAW

In India, a child below 7 years is considered to be absolutely immune from criminal liability
whereas in England law the age is fixed at 10 years. In 1998 the England Government abolished
the principle of Doli incapax. This was the presumption in law that children aged under 14 did
not know the difference between right and wrong and were therefore not capable of committing
an offence. This presumption could be rebutted through the evidence for children between the
ages of 10 and 14 if the prosecution could satisfy the court that the child knew that what the child
was doing was seriously wrong, not "merely naughty or malicious". In India, the child between
the age of 7 to 12 enjoys a qualified immunity and is presumed to be in 'Doli incapax', therefore
the burden to rebut the presumption lies upon him by proving that he was of that age group.

CRITICISM

It may be pointed that Indian Law relating to infancy suffer from one lacuna, as section 82 deals with an
act done by a child below 7 years and Section 83 deals with the child above 7 and below 12 years of age,
both the sections make no provisions if that child is exact 7 years old. It is submitted that such an infant
should be dealt with under section 82 of the Indian Penal Code because penal statutes are interpreted
strictly. And no judges are likely to hold a child of that age group criminally responsible without
satisfying himself that the child has sufficient mental capability of understanding the nature and
consequence of the Act. This Principle is based on ‘quia malitia supplet actatem‘ which means ‘malice
makes up for age’.
 CONCLUSION

No child is born with an ill intent. It takes a child at the most seven years of age to understand
their emotions and their environment. Hence, it is important to preserve their innocence. That is
why Section 82, IPC provides children below the age of seven, Absolute Immunity. After the age
of seven, their growth and development takes place at a faster pace. Every child attains a
different level of understanding and maturity at a different age. Hence, Section 83, IPC focuses
on the maturity and understanding level of the child than its age. Hence, they have Qualified
Immunity. In India, it is easy to prove that the accused child lacks the maturity to understand the
grievousness of his actions. That there was no intent in their actions. Also, it is in the best
interest of children to have a separate legal system than from the adults.