What criminal immunities have been granted to children under seven years of age and children above seven and under twelve under IPC?

 To hold a person criminally liable, his evil intention in committing the offence is required. But, when we talk about children it is assumed that a child does not have an evil mind. 

In olden days every home was the best child care home but with growth of population and industrialisation children are being neglected by their own parents and come in contact with evil elements in the society.

Many of such children who are charged as criminals are themselves victims of the circumstances prevailing in the society. He is not thought competent to take proper decision. Thus, the children completely lack mens rea in doing any act. The IPC deals with two circumstances where the children’s criminal liability has been mentioned. Sections 82 and 83 of IPC grant immunity to an infant below a particular age from criminal responsibility.

Section 82 totally absolves a child under 7 years of age from criminal responsibility, whereas section 83 grants partial immunity against prosecution and punishment for a child above 7 and under 12 years of age.

Sec 82 Act of a Child under Seven Years of Age- Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

Section 82 gives a complete protection to any act done by a child of less than seven years of age since a child below this age is considered doli incapax in law.

Sec 83 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 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.

Where the accused is the child above 7 years of age and under 12 years, the incapacity to commit an offence only arises when the child has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature consequences of his conduct and such non attainment would have apparently to be specially pleaded and proved, like the incapacity of a person who, at the time of doing an act charged as an offence, was alleged to have been of unsound mind under this section, it has to be shown that the accused is not only under 12 years but has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding.

If no evidence or circumstance is brought to the notice of the court, it will be presumed that the child accused intended to do what he really did. What the section contemplates is that the child should not know the nature and physical consequences of his conduct. The circumstances of a case may disclose such a degree of malice as to justify the maxim militia supplet octatem.

Under Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Court is required to see whether the person claiming the protection was in a position to understand the nature and quality of his act. Section 83 provides qualified immunity because it presumes that a child above seven and below twelve years has sufficient maturity to commit a crime and the burden is on the defence to prove that he did not possess sufficient.

Patna High Court in Krishna Bhagwan v. State of Bihar, 1991 CriLJ 1283 said that sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Penal Code, which provide that nothing is an offence which is done by child under seven years of age, and that 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 consequence of his conduct on that occasion. These provisions, however, were mainly introduced for the reason that unless done with criminal intention, any act or omission, is not an offence.