Act of Child

Section 82
 Apart from the various acts concerning children, The
Indian Penal Code (IPC) also has a list of offences
against children.
• According to the sections 82 and 83 of the IPC a child
who commits a crime and is below the age of seven is
not considered to have committed a crime.
• A child who is between the ages of seven and twelve
and is deemed to have immature understanding about
the consequences of his/her actions is also considered
incapable of committing a crime.
 Act of child
• It is assumed that a child does not have an evil mind and he does not do things
with evil intention.
• He cannot even fully understand the implications of the act that he is doing.
• Thus, he completely lacks mens rea and should not be punished.

IPC contains for following exemptions for a child -

Section 82 - Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of
age.
Section 83 - Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of
age and below twelve years of age who has not attained the sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge the nature and consequences of this conduct on that
occasion.
Through these sections, IPC acknowledges the fact that children under seven years
of age cannot have sufficient maturity to commit a crime and is completely
excused.
In Indian law, a child below seven years of age is called Doli Incapax.

In Queen vs Lukhini Agradanini 1874 , it was held that merely the

proof of age of the child would be a conclusive proof of innocence
and would ipso facto be an answer to the charge against him.

• However, a child above seven but below twelve may or may not
have sufficient maturity to commit a crime and whether he is
sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of
the act needs to be determined from the facts of the case. To claim
a defence under section 83, a child must
be above seven and below twelve years of age.
• not have attained sufficient maturity to understand the nature and
consequences of his act.
• be immature at the time of commission of the act.
• Section 83 provides qualified immunity because presumes that a
child above seven and below twelve has sufficient maturity to
commit a crime and the burden is on the defence to prove that he
did not possess sufficient maturity.
• Thus, in Hiralal vs State of Bihar 1977, the boy who participated in
a concerted action and used a sharp weapon for a murderous
attack, was held guilty in the absence of any evidence leading to
boy's feeble understanding of his actions.

In English law, a boy below 14 years is deemed incapable of raping a

woman but no such protection is offered in India and
in Emperor vs Paras Ram Dubey, a boy of 12 years of age was
convicted of raping a girl.