IPC Section 83 : Act Of A Child Above Seven And Under Twelve Of Immature Understanding

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) outlines various provisions that govern criminal liability, especially concerning children. Section 83 of the IPC deals specifically with the liability of children above the age of seven but below the age of twelve. This section provides a unique framework, acknowledging that such children may not have the requisite maturity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. The provision essentially exempts such children from criminal liability, emphasizing the role of mental maturity in determining culpability. In this article, we will explore the significance, interpretation, and implications of IPC Section 83.

Legal Provision

Section 83 of the IPC ‘Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding’ states

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 consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

This provision exempts children above the age of seven but under twelve from criminal liability if they lack sufficient maturity of understanding. The rationale is rooted in the belief that young children at this age lack the cognitive and emotional maturity to comprehend the consequences of their actions.

Key Elements Of Section 83 Of IPC

Section 83 of the IPC provides a defense for children aged between seven and twelve based on their immature understanding. The key elements are:

1. Age: The individual must be above seven and under twelve years old at the time of the alleged offense. This age bracket is crucial for invoking this section.
2. Insufficient Maturity of Understanding: The child must lack sufficient maturity to understand the nature of their actions (what they were doing) and the consequences of those actions (what would result from them). This is the core of the defense.
3. "On That Occasion": The assessment of maturity is specific to the particular incident. The child's understanding is evaluated in the context of the specific circumstances of the alleged offense, not their general understanding.

The burden of proving this lack of maturity rests with the defense. If successfully proven, the act is not considered an offense.

Burden Of Proof

The burden of proving the lack of sufficient maturity of understanding lies on the defense. This means that the accused must present evidence to convince the court that the child did not understand the nature and consequences of their actions at the time of the alleged offense.

Factors Considered In Determining Maturity

Courts consider various factors when assessing a child's maturity of understanding under Section 83:

• Age and Physical Development: While the section provides a specific age range, the child's overall physical and mental development is taken into account.
• Intelligence and Education: The child's intellectual capacity and level of education can provide insights into their understanding of right and wrong.
• Circumstances of the Offense: The complexity of the offense, the child's role in it, and their behavior during and after the incident are relevant factors.
• Evidence from Experts: Psychological or psychiatric evaluations can provide expert opinions on the child's cognitive and emotional development.
• Witness Testimony: Testimony from parents, teachers, or other individuals who know the child can shed light on their general understanding and behavior.

IPC Section 83: Key Details

Challenges And Practical Considerations

Applying Section 83 in practice can present several challenges:

• Subjectivity of the Test: The assessment of "sufficient maturity of understanding" is inherently subjective, leading to potential inconsistencies in judicial decisions.
• Lack of Uniform Assessment Tools: There is no standardized method for evaluating a child's maturity for the purposes of Section 83, relying heavily on judicial discretion.
• Balancing Protection and Accountability: Striking a balance between protecting young children from undue criminalization and ensuring accountability for harmful actions can be difficult.
• Impact of Social and Cultural Factors: Social and cultural backgrounds can influence a child's development and understanding, adding complexity to the assessment.

Case Laws

A few case laws on Section 83 of IPC are

Ulla Mahapatra v. The King

This case, though pre-constitutional, discusses the principle of doli incapax. It highlights the need to determine whether the child understood the nature of the act and that it was wrong or contrary to law. This case laid some groundwork for understanding the "maturity of understanding" concept. It is important to remember that post the enactment of the JJ Act this case has limited relevance.

Krishna Bhagwan v. State Of Bihar

This case dealt with the admissibility of confessional statements made by juveniles. It implicitly touches on the vulnerability of young minds and the need for safeguards, a principle aligned with the rationale behind Section 83. The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of such confessions.

Pratap Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

This case, while primarily focused on the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act (predecessor to the 2015 Act), discussed the legislative intent behind special provisions for juveniles. It underscores the shift towards a reformative approach rather than a purely punitive one, reflecting the underlying philosophy of Section 83.

Conclusion

Section 83 of the IPC is a crucial provision that reflects a child-centric approach to criminal justice. It recognizes that children between the ages of seven and twelve may not have the mental maturity to fully comprehend the nature and consequences of their actions. Ensuring the correct application of this provision requires a collaborative effort between legal systems, psychological expertise, and societal responsibility.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Here are some frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help clarify the key aspects of Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its implications on children's criminal liability.

Q1.What is Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code?

Section 83 of the IPC exempts children above the age of seven but below twelve from criminal liability if they lack sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions.

Q2.How is the maturity of a child assessed under Section 83 of the IPC?

Courts assess a child’s maturity by considering factors such as their age, physical and mental development, intelligence, education, and expert psychological evaluations.

Q3.What is the age limit for invoking Section 83 of the IPC?

Section 83 applies to children above seven years of age but under twelve. This specific age range is crucial in determining whether the child is exempt from criminal liability.

Q4.Who bears the burden of proof in cases involving Section 83?

The burden of proving a child's lack of sufficient maturity lies with the defense, meaning the accused must present evidence to demonstrate that the child did not understand the nature or consequences of their actions.

Q5.How does Section 83 of the IPC align with the principle of child welfare?

Section 83 reflects a child-centric approach to justice, emphasizing rehabilitation and protection rather than punishment, and recognizing the cognitive immaturity of children aged between seven and twelve years.

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141485/
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141485/
3. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/06/02/draft-model-rules-under-juvenile-justice-care-and-protection-of-children-act-2015/
4. https://lawcrust.com/child-witnesses-in-indian/