Infancy

• Infancy is a defence in criminal liability because the infant has no

mens rea.
• An infant under the age of discretion ought not to be punished by any
criminal prosecution because he cannot distinguish between right
and wrong or between good and bad.
• There are two provisions on the defence of infancy:
1. Below the age of ten years:
• S82 of PC: nothing is an offence
2. Above ten years but below twelve years:
• S83 of PC: it will be no offence if it is done by a child who is above 10 years
but below 12 years old, who has not attained sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge the nature and consequence of hos conduct on that
occasion.
S82 OF PC
• A child, below 10 years old has absolute immunity as he is regarded
as an infant unable to distinguish between right and wrong and
therefore cannot be guilty of a crime.
• The presumption of the law is that a child under 10 years of age is
incapable of crime (doli incapax) and cannot be endowed with any
discretion.
• Case: WALTERS V LUNT
• The parents of a 7 year old boy were charged for receiving stolen property.
The boy had earlier brought home a tricycle and the parents, despite knowing
that it was stolen , kept it on their premises. It was held that the child was
incapable of forming the intention necessary for a crime. Since the child could
not steal, the tricycle was not stolen and the parents were acquitted.
S83 OF PC
• Nothing is an offence when it is done by the child above 10 years but
below the age of 12 and has not attained sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge the nature and consequence of his conduct
on that occasion.
• The question would be on whether the child has attained the level of
maturity so that he is able to judge the nature and consequence of
the act as either good or evil.
• case: LUKHIRO AQRADANINI- where the accused is above 7 years of
age but below 12, the incapacity to commit an offence only arises
where the child has not attained sufficient maturity, but such non-
attainment must be pleaded and proved , like the incapacity of a
person of an unsound mind. (Malaysia: above 10 years below 12
years)
• Case: ABDUL SATTAR V CROWN AIR- a group of children was held of
having sufficient maturity when they knew how to break the locks
and were able to select valuable goods only and left the cheap ones
behind.
• case: ULLAH V THE KING- a child of 9 years old (India between & and
12) was held guilty for the offence of murder when he became angry
and advanced towards his friend while holding knife and threatening
to cut him. The child did the act and killed the friend. It was held that
the child did what he intended to do and that he knew that a blow
with a knife would effectuate his intention. He fully understood the
nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion and was
held guilty of murder.
Consequence of conduct
• The phrase of consequence of conduct in S83 is not defined but it
refers not so much to the likely offence which the child might have
committed but more to the natural consequences that results from
the child’s action.
• It is not the penal consequence to the offender that are referred to but the
natural consequences which flow from a voluntary act.