Juvenile Justice Board, Sonipat: While hearing an inquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’), Vikrant, Principal Magistrate, held that a child below twelve years could not be held criminally liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Board emphasised that Section 83 IPC, read with the principle of doli incapax, provides conditional immunity, and since the prosecution failed to prove sufficient maturity of understanding, the child was entitled to absolution.
Background:
The case arose from the discovery of a dead body near a pond in village Madina on 16-06-2023, with multiple injuries and a blood-stained brick found nearby. Statements of family members and witnesses suggested that the deceased had earlier scolded the child and his uncle for plucking mangoes, after which threats were allegedly made. Based on disclosure statements, the child was apprehended and blood-stained clothes were recovered. The school record showed the child’s date of birth as 04-12-2011, making him 11 years 6 months and 12 days old at the time of occurrence.
The prosecution contended that oral and documentary evidence was sufficient to prove the accusation and sought strict action under the JJ Act. However, counsel for the child argued that the evidence was unreliable, based on hearsay, lacked eyewitnesses, and suffered from contradictions. It was further submitted that the circumstantial evidence was vague and insufficient, entitling the child to be absolved.
Analysis and Decision
The Board emphasised that Section 3(i) of the JJ Act provides that a child shall be presumed innocent of any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of 18 years, and when read with Sections 82 and 83 IPC, it makes clear that the presumption of doli incapax has to be in favour of child innocence. Similar to the case of a child below 7 years, it has to be presumed that a child between 7 and 12 years has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct.
The Board noted that while the presumption under Section 82 IPC is absolute, in cases of children between 7 and 12 years the prosecution may rebut this presumption by producing facts and circumstances showing sufficient maturity. It was emphasised that the law assumes a lack of maturity, placing the onus on the prosecution to prove otherwise, since the philosophy behind this immunity is in consonance with Section 3(i) of the JJ Act, which aims at protecting children from the full force of criminal law.
The Board highlighted that in the present case, no interview was carried out during investigation or inquiry, no psychological assessment was conducted, and no effort was made to find out the mental capability of child in conflict with law. The Board considered that the Social Investigation Report (‘SIR’) showed the child was not involved in any unsocial or undisciplined activities and held that filing the final report without psychological assessment was a fatal lapse, entitling the child to be absolved.
The Board further noted that the investigating officer failed to record statements of independent witnesses present at the spot, and that inconsistencies between testimonies weakened the prosecution case. It was observed that the prosecution did not explain why fingerprints were not matched when the blood-stained brick was sent for forensic examination, and no conclusive opinion was given as the material had disintegrated.
The Board highlighted that the evidence did not prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt since the chain of circumstances was inconsistent, testimonies of material witnesses were contradictory, and the conduct of star witnesses was suspicious and unnatural. It was also observed that no forensic evidence linked the child with the seized material or the dead body.
Accordingly, the Board absolved the child of the accusation, discharged bail/surety bonds, directed disposal of case property as per rules, and ordered destruction of the record under Section 24 JJ Act. The Board also directed preparation of an Individual Care Plan (‘ICP’) as per rules.
The inquiry was accordingly disposed of.
[State of Haryana v. S, CIS No. JJB- xxxxx of 2023, decided on 17-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the State: Kavita, Ld. APP
Buy Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
