1. Facts of the Case
- ‘Z’ is a child aged 9 years.
- Z is holding a small stick and threatens to murder ‘A’.
- ‘A’ perceives the threat and kills ‘Z’ in response.
- ‘A’ claims the right of private defence under Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Issues in the Case
- Can a person claim the right of private defence against a child who is under the age of criminal responsibility?
- Was the threat posed by the 9-year-old child with a stick grave enough to justify causing death in private defence?
- Does Indian law justify the killing of a child under the perceived threat of harm?
- What are the limitations to the right of private defence, especially when the attacker is a minor?
3. Legal Principles and Provisions Involved
A. Right of Private Defence – Sections 96 to 106, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 96 IPC – Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
- Section 97 IPC – Right of private defence of the body extends to causing harm to protect one’s own body or that of another.
- Section 99 IPC – The right does not extend to inflicting more harm than necessary. No right of private defence against acts done by a child under the age of 7 or a person of unsound mind, unless there is an apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
- Section 100 IPC – The right of private defence extends to causing death if the assault causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
B. Capacity of Children to Commit Crime – Section 82 & 83 IPC
- Section 82 IPC – Nothing is an offence done by a child under 7 years of age.
- Section 83 IPC – Acts of a child between 7 and 12 years are not offences unless the child has attained sufficient maturity of understanding the nature of the act.
C. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
- Defines a child as a person below 18 years.
- Recognizes different treatment for children in conflict with the law, especially under the age of 16.
- A 9-year-old would be considered a child in need of care and protection, not a criminal.
D. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
- India is a signatory and bound to uphold child rights.
- Killing a child, even in response to a threat, must be strictly scrutinized in light of child protection principles.
4. Possible Judgment and Analysis
A. Evaluation of Threat
- A small stick in the hand of a 9-year-old child is not a deadly weapon.
- There is no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt from such an assault.
- The right of private defence under Section 100 IPC does not justify causing death in this situation.
B. Proportionality of Response
- The response (killing the child) is grossly disproportionate to the perceived threat.
- Section 99 IPC explicitly restricts causing more harm than necessary.
C. Legal Conclusion
- ‘A’ cannot take the defence of private defence, as the assault did not cause any reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
- The child was under 10 years and was holding a non-lethal object (stick).
- The killing of ‘Z’ by ‘A’ is not protected under the right of private defence and would amount to culpable homicide or murder, depending on intention and circumstances.
- The court may hold ‘A’ guilty under Section 302 IPC (murder), or Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), depending on mitigating factors.
References to Women and Children Related Laws (as required)
| Law / Section | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Section 82 IPC | Presumes absolute immunity for children under 7. |
| Section 83 IPC | Conditional immunity for children aged 7–12 based on maturity. |
| JJ Act, 2015 | Provides for protection and rehabilitation of children under 18. |
| UNCRC Guidelines | Protects life and dignity of children globally, ratified by India. |
Final Summary
In the given scenario, ‘A’ is not justified in taking the life of a 9-year-old child armed with a small stick under the guise of private defence. The law protects the right to self-defence, but only when the threat is imminent, grave, and proportional to the harm caused in defence. In this case, the absence of grave danger makes the act of killing unlawful, and the accused is liable under criminal law.
