INFANCY (S.82 & S.

83)

Meaning (William Blackstone in Commentaries on the Laws of England)

“Infancy is a defect of the understanding, & infants under the age of discretion ought not to be
punished by any criminal prosecution whatever”

S.82 (under 10 years old)

-Non mentality - no mens rea – no criminal responsibility –Doli incapax - Absolute immunity-
irrebuttable presumption

-a person full age may be guilty of abetting an act done by a child under 10

R v Ba Ba Sein

A was 5 years being the owner of a bus was charged and found guilty for an offence pursuant to
S.7 Burma Hired Motor Vehicle Rules (BHMVR). The said vehicle does not possess a ‘fit pass’ as
required by law. Hence, the bus was found plying for hire without being registered and without a
licence.

Ct: S. 6 = Every definition or penal provision shall be subject to the General Exceptions.

S. 40 of Pc says that in Chap. IV, the word ‘offence’ denotes a thing punishable under this present
Code or under any special/local law. As such, it includes the BHMVR. A enjoyed absolute immunity.

Walters v Lunt

The parents of a 7 yers old boy were charged for receiving a stolen property. The good was taken
by the child and were found on the premises of the parents despite knowing that it was stolen.

Ct: Child xconsidered in law capable of forming the intention necessary for a crime. Since the child
cannot steal, the good was not stolen & therefore the parents were acquitted.

Emperor v Wali Mohamad

2 boys aged 5 & 8. Both were charged for throwing stone at the moving train under S.128 Railway
Act.

Ct: Even they were charged under different Act, they still under the protection of S.82 (pari
material with our PC) S.6 & S.40

Marsh v Loader

The def caught a child in the act of stealing from his premises and gave him into custody. The child
was discharged on the ground that he was 6yrs. The child brought an action against the def for
false imprisonment.

Ct: if a crime is committed by a child below 8 yrs old, the child is absolutely protected. The
neighbour was liable for false Imprisonment that locked a child who is criminally immune.
 S. 83 (above 10 under 12 years of age + not attained sufficient maturity of
understanding)

Doli Capax - rebuttable presumption

It is the defence to show that the child does not qualify the level of maturity of understanding
(MOU) wc to be presumed.

If he is exactly 10, according to Dr. Gaur “should be dealt with S.82 rather than S.83”

India- MOU to be inferred is that he know the nature of the act &consequences of his conduct

Mussamut Aimona
Girl (10 yrs )- her husband attempted to bit her- father in law scolded her- after days- she struck
with a sharp instrument towards her husband and ran to hide.

Ct: found guilty since she has reached the level of mature of understanding that she knows her act
was wrong by running to hide.

Marimuthu
Girl (10 yrs) worked as a servant took a silver button belonging to her master & gave it to her
mother w/o taking any steps to conceal her actions.

Ct: not liable because after took it and gave it straight away w/o conceals it.

Hiralal Mallick
She picks up a necklace worth 100 rupees and sold it with a very low price.

Ct: she was liable because her act by selling it with a very low price in order to dispose it as soon
as possible to get the money.

Abdul Sattar & anor

A number of children had broken open the locks of 2 shop premises. Selected only the valuable
goods & left the less valuable behind. They opened lock of shop and stole pulses from one shop but
did not take anything from another shop which was discovered to be butchers.

CT: Their action showed that there was sufficient maturity of understanding by selecting only the
valuable goods & left the less valuable behind.

Ulla Mahapatra
A boy about 12 yrs convicted of an offence under S.302 for causing death towards Ranka. The boy
picked up a kathi and advanced towards the deceased with a threatening gesture, yelling that he
would cut him to bits before the deceased would do and struck it to Ranka’s chest.

Ct: He was liable. The child’s entire action lead to the inference that he realizes the nature and the
consequences of what he was going to do when he yelled “I shall cut u to bits row”.

S. 113 Evidence Act 1950

It shall be irrebuttable presumption of law that a boy under 13 yrs is incapable of committing rape.
However he can be liable for attempted rape.

Nga Tun Kaing

A little boy of twelve was found guilty of an attempt to commit rape upon a girl of 4. The girl’s parts
were found to be bruised.

Lim Hang Seoh

A boy of 14 yrs had found guilty of possession of a pistol and ammunition and had been sentenced
to death under S. 57 of ISA. He appealed to FC.
Ct: dismissed the appeal because the appellant knew that the bag found in his possession
contained a pistol and ammunition.