Infancy as Excusable

Defense
Prepared By : Deepika Dangal
Roll no: Thirty one
3rd semester, B.A.LLB
Content
 Meaning of Infants
 Rationale of Infancy as Excusable defense
 Categories of infants for Criminal Liability in

Nepal
 Nepalese Provision
 Relevant case
 Conclusion
 References
Meaning of Infants
 An infant is a baby or very young child.
 An infant is a child during earliest period of

its life.
 An infant is derived from the Latin term

Infans, which means unable to speak or

speechless.
 Legally, An infant is a minor who is not full of

age, especially who has not reached the age

of 18 years.
 Infancy indicates the condition of an
individual who is legally unable to do certain
acts.
 There is no philosophical basis of marking

the age of infants.

 Infancy is classified as an excusable defense

since it is believed that a child lacks

understanding.
 The provision of setting limit to infancy

differs widely from country to country, owing

to its livelihood, history, culture, etc.
Rationale of Infancy as excusable
defense
 Infants are not capable of understanding the
nature and consequences of their conduct.
 It takes ages to reach at maturity of

understanding, which is named as quia militia

supplet aetatem which means malice makes
up for age.
 Infants do not have capacity to differentiate

good and bad things.

 They do not have mens rea.
 The mind of infants are not developed.
 The reasoning power of them is not

developed. So they should not be punished.

 Infancy asserts that the defendant is not

subject to criminal prosecution because

he/she is too young to commit crime and
should be treated as a patient.
Categories of Infants for Criminal Liability in Nepal

 If the age of criminal responsibility is fixed

too low or if there is no lower age limit at all,
the notion of criminal responsibility would
become meaningless.
 For the purpose of criminal liability in the

Context of Nepal, infants are divided into 3

categories:
 A. Child under 10 years
 B. Children aged 10 but under 14 years
 C. children aged 14 but under 16 years
Nepalese Provision
The Children Act, 2075
1. If a child below 10 years of age commits an act
which is an offence under a law, he/she shall not be
liable to any type of punishment.
2. If a child above 10 and under 14 years commits a
crime in which there is punishment of
imprisonment , he/she shall be given warning or
punished with imprisonment for a term up to six
months.
3. If a child is above 14 and under 16 years of age ,
he/she shall be held liable half punishment of the
adult criminal for committing criminal offence.
 Section 13 of Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 : A
person committing an act considered to be
offense under the law in force shall not be
punished if he/she has not attended ten
years age at the time of commission of such
act.
Relevant Case
 Gopinath Gosh v. State of West Bengal
 It was the case raised for the first time before the
supreme court of India where the accused plead it
was minor. The Supreme Court directed the
sessions judge to inquire into the matter and
submit the age of the accused. It was found that
the accused was aged between 16 and 17 years.
Since, West Bengal Children Act 1959 , defined
child as a person below 18 years, the Supreme
Court held that accused was entitled to protection
under this act and accordingly set aside the
conviction of the accused.
Conclusion
Infancy is regarded as a major form of
excusable defense. Infants are not capable of
understanding the nature and consequences
of their conduct. They are minors. The
reasoning power of infants is not developed
and blame cannot be imposed. So they
should not be punished and infancy can be
treated as excusable defense.
References
 https://www.academia.edu/6074584/Justifia
ble_and_Excusable_Defences_in_IPC
 Muluki Criminal Act, 2074
 Principles if International Criminal Law
 Notes