1. Facts of the Case
- “A”, a 10-year-old student studying in the 5th standard in Hyderabad, was found involved in a cyber crime.
- The child allegedly used a smartphone to access a social media platform and sent offensive messages and doctored images targeting a fellow student and a teacher.
- The act caused mental harassment and emotional distress to the victims.
- The incident was reported to the local cyber crime police station by the parents of the victims.
- Upon investigation, the IP address was traced to “A’s” residence, and the device used was identified as belonging to the child’s parent.
- The incident has raised concerns about cyber safety, child psychology, and parental responsibility.
2. Issues in the Case
- Can a minor under the age of 12 be held criminally liable under Indian law?
- What cyber laws are applicable to acts involving transmission of offensive content and doctored images?
- Are parents or guardians responsible for crimes committed by their minor children using digital devices?
- What legal and corrective measures can be applied in such juvenile cyber crime cases?
3. Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
a. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
- Section 82 IPC – “Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.”
- Section 83 IPC – “Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct.”
In this case, the child is 10 years old. Thus, Section 83 IPC is relevant. The court will examine whether the child had sufficient maturity.
b. Information Technology Act, 2000
- Section 66E – Punishment for violation of privacy by capturing or publishing images without consent.
- Section 67 – Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
- Section 67A – Publishing material containing sexually explicit acts (if relevant).
- Section 67B – Publishing child-related inappropriate content (if any such content was involved).
Although the IT Act does not distinguish between adult and juvenile offenders, the application must be balanced with the Juvenile Justice law.
c. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
- Any individual below 18 years is treated as a juvenile.
- Section 10 – Procedure for apprehension of juvenile in conflict with law.
- Section 15 & 18 – Adjudication by Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and sentencing in a manner that focuses on reformative and rehabilitative justice.
- No juvenile under 16 can be tried as an adult.
d. Parental Responsibility
- There is no direct criminal liability under IPC/IT Act on parents unless there is evidence of gross negligence or abetment.
- However, parents can be questioned under Section 75 of JJ Act for cruelty if negligence is evident.
4. Possible Judgement
- The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) will assess whether the child had sufficient maturity to understand the gravity of his actions under Section 83 IPC.
- Based on psychological evaluation and socio-educational background, if the child is found to lack full understanding, no criminal liability may be imposed.
- However, corrective measures such as:
- Counseling for the child,
- Parental guidance training,
- Awareness sessions on cyber safety and online behavior,
- Periodic monitoring of the child’s internet activity may be ordered.
- The parents may be warned and advised on responsible digital parenting but will not face criminal prosecution unless active negligence is established.
- The school may also be directed to initiate cyber safety awareness programs.
Conclusion:
The case highlights the importance of cyber awareness among children, the role of parents and schools in supervising digital usage, and the law’s focus on reform over punishment in juvenile cases.
