Introduction:
Children are the future of any country thus a state must ensure that children are properly developed. United Nations Convention on Rights of Children (UNCRC) defines a child as every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, the majority is attained earlier. Countries have the freedom to fix the age limit in determining that who is a child.
According to the Indian Majority Act, a person domiciled in India is said to have attained the age of majority after turning 18 years old. So any person below this age is considered minor.
As per the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000, juveniles or minors are considered to be those who have yet to complete the age of 18 years.
The mental state of adults and children are different and thus they should be treated differently. Thus there are different provisions in the legal system to ensure that children do not suffer from any ailment.
Principle of Doli Incapax:
Doli Incapax is a Latin legal maxim. The maxim means “Incapable of committing a crime”.
Doli incapax is the principle of criminal jurisprudence that declares the criminal liability of children. It means that a child cannot be held legally responsible for his acts or action and cannot be convicted of a criminal offense.
The principal says that no child below the age of seven years would be prosecuted for commission of any offense, and the children above seven years and below twelve years of age, the prosecution will have a great burden of proof that the minor was capable of understanding the act or was having sufficient knowledge of the nature of the act or else the child will not be convicted of any offense.
In the case of Heeralal v. State of Bihar, an eleven-year-old child, quarreled with the deceased and threatened to cut the deceased into pieces. The child picked up the knife and stabbed the deceased to death. The defense under Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code was pleaded. The trial court convicted the boy rejecting the defense because the child’s words, gesture, assault, keeping a knife, and ultimately stabbing the deceased proved that the child knew and understanding of the consequences of his actions. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court.
In the case of R v. LMW, a 10-year-old boy, LMW, was charged with the killing of six-year-old Corvey Davis, who drowned on 2 March 1998. The defendant had dropped Corey into the Georges River, knowing that Corey was unable to swim. The defendant was found not guilty of killing, as the jury supported the defense case that the drowning of Corey had been ‘an act of bullying that went wrong. This case raised the issue of doli incapax, which presumes any child aged 10-14 is incapable of criminal intent unless proven otherwise.
Indian Penal Code:
Section 82 and Section 83 of IPC deals with the criminal liability of a child.
Section 82 of IPC states that: “Nothing is an offense which is done by a child under seven years of age.”
The above provision gives absolute immunity to children below the age of 7 years from being charged, heard, and convicted for any offense prescribed under the IPC or other legal provisions.
Shyam Bahadur Koeri v. State of Bihar, in this case child below the age of 7 years discovered a gold plate that weighed 28 tolas. However, after obtaining it, he did not report it to the Collector. When the Collector came to know of this, he ordered the prosecution of the child under the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878. The Court acquitted the child averring that he had the benefit of Section 82 of the IPC as he was below 7 years of age.
Section 83 of the IPC asserts that “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 the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.”
This Section deals with offenses committed by a child above the age of 7 years and below the age of 12 years. To prosecute a child, the following essentials must be satisfied:
- The act must be done by a child.
- The child must be above 7 years and below 12 years of age.
- The child must not have attained sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of their conduct.
The section provides that when a child above the age of 7 years and below the age of 12 years is said to have committed an offense if the Court can determine that the child had sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. In this instance, the term “consequence of his conduct” does not mean the penal consequences but the natural consequences of their conduct.
The proof of sufficient maturity can be determined depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In general cases, it can be ascertained from the following:
- The nature of the act committed by the child.
- The subsequent conduct of the child after committing such an act.
- The appearance of the child before the Court of Law.
In the case of Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar , the accused was below the age of 12 years and had a dispute with the victim about an earlier attack on his father. The accused, armed with a sharp weapon, along with his elder brothers, gave several blows to the victim on his vital body parts, causing the death of the victim. The accused was charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused pleaded the defense under Section 83. The Court analyzed the medical evidence, which showed that the child was armed with a cutting instrument and set upon the victim using the sword on his neck. The autopsy evidence disclosed that the injuries caused by the accused were not the lethal ones but multiple sword cuts on the neck of a man, leaving little room for doubt in the ordinary run of cases as to the intent of the accused. When three persons, with swords in their hands, attack a single individual and strike on his neck and skull several times with a sharp weapon, it is not caressing but killing, in all conscience and common sense. The Court rejected the defense of the child and convicted him holding that the act of the accused of stabbing the victim with a sharp weapon shows that the accused had attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his act.
Conclusion:
A child is liable for an offense if they are above 7 years of age and below 12 years of age, and can understand the nature and consequences of their actions. When a child of 16 to 18 years of age commits an offense which is a heinous one and if a preliminary assessment proves that such a child was able to understand the consequences of their actions then he will be held liable.
However, in most cases, the conviction or acquittal of the accused child is based on the facts and circumstances of the case as there are specific guidelines that govern such conviction. The principle of doli incapax provides immunity to children from being charged with, tried for, and convicted for offenses under the IPC or any other law. Thus, minors do not have total immunity from the commission of an offense, unless such child is below the age of 7 years, in which case the child shall not be held liable for the commission of any offense.
References:
- The Indian Majority Act, 1875, 3, No.9, Acts of Parliament, 1875(India).
- Heeralal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 2236.
- Soumyadeep das, What is “doli incapax” in which section of IPC it lies?, Strictly Legal, (Apr. 8, 2021, 7:07pm), Link.
- R v. LMW, [1999] NSWSC 1128.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, 82, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India).
- Shyam Bahadur Koeri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 Pat 312.
