Section 82 clearly briefs about the offence by a child as it states that, “any act done by a child of 7 years or under that will not be an offence under the eye of the law”. 

On the similar side Section, 83 mentioned about the acts done by a child under immaturity. This section lays down an important aspect of the children above 7 and under 12 years of age. This section states that “Acts done by a child from 7-12 years of age will not be considered under an offence, as at that time the child has not been able to cope with enough maturity of understanding and knowledge to relate facts and consequences to his or her conduct. The basic components of these Sections are:

  • Act of child below 7 years of age.
  • Act of a child above 7 but below 12 years of age.
  • Maturity of understanding.

Act of a child below 7 years of age 

Article 82 is based on the assumption that a child under the age of 7 cannot commit a crime and therefore cannot be held liable for a crime. A child under the age of seven is doli incapax and therefore receives absolute immunity.

It is believed that a child under the age of 7 cannot distinguish between right and wrong. He does not have the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of his actions.

This assumption is clear and cannot be denied because the child cannot understand the effects of his actions. This provision exempts a child under the age of 7 from all criminal liability, regardless of how serious the crime is.

An act is done by a child at the age of immaturity

Section 83 assumes that a child over 7 years old but under 12 is doli capax, i.e able to commit crimes according to his or her maturity level. However, this is a hypothesis that can be refuted. That can be disproved by evidence of a child’s naughty ability.

The prosecutor required to prove without reason that the boy had caused actus reus with a male reaction and that he knew that his behaviour was not only evil but “wrong”. The responsibility of such children depends on their maturity in understanding the nature and consequences of their behaviour, not their age.

Therefore, the question determines its responsibility not on its age, but on its maturity at the time the crime was committed. Therefore, it is important for the defendant to determine that the offender was not only under 12 years of age at the time the crime was committed, but also did not reach the level of maturity needed to understand the nature and consequences of his actions.

Immunity is not given to children above 12 years. There is no exemption from criminal liability after the age of 12, even though the culprit is an adult with an underdeveloped understanding and cannot understand the nature and consequences of the act.

The understanding of childhood and development will be applicable with regards to the sentence to be passed against him in case of his conviction. By the way, the consideration of everything being equal, for example, individuals as long as 18 years old, is currently controlled by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. After the Nirbhaya Rape case, an age gathering of 16-18 was made to treat the guilty parties of grievous offences, having a place with this age bunch as grown-ups.

Age of inculpating

The most important question that arises in front of the judiciary is the accusation of a crime. There are 3 important things that need attention. 

  • The first is the right day. the date on which the violation was committed or the day on which the defendant was submitted to the competent authority to assess the child’s age in accordance with the child’s law or court hearing.
  • The second is the essence of the evidence needed to prove the nature of juvenile offenders.  
  • The third point is the point where one can argue that the convicted is a minor.

Case- Umesh Chandra v. the State of Rajasthan, 1982

Facts- In this case, it was stated by the supreme court while dealing with the Rajasthan child act, 1970 that an appropriate date for the applicability of the Act so as the age of the wrongdoer, who pretends to be a child is concerned, is the date of the occurrence, and the particular date of the trial.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.