1. Facts of the Case
Two minor boys—one aged 12 years and the other aged 9 years—broke open the lock of a local shop during the night and stole articles such as chocolates, money, and packaged food. The theft was later discovered by the shop owner, and CCTV footage confirmed the identity of the boys. They were brought before the Juvenile Justice Board for questioning and assessment.
2. Issues in the Case
The central legal questions to be addressed in this case are:
- Can children under the ages of 12 and 9 be held criminally liable under Indian law?
- What is the legal presumption of innocence for children?
- Which provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 apply in this case?
- What should be the ideal judicial approach—punishment or rehabilitation?
3. Legal Principles and Provisions Applicable
This case primarily involves provisions from Indian laws that protect the rights of children, focusing on criminal liability, mental capacity, and rehabilitative justice.
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 82 & 83
- Section 82 IPC: “Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.”
- The 9-year-old boy is above 7, so this section does not apply to him.
- Section 83 IPC: “Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above 7 years and under 12, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.”
- This applies to both boys, especially the 12-year-old, and is subject to judicial interpretation of mental maturity.
B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
- Section 2(35): Defines a “child in conflict with law” as someone alleged or found to have committed an offence and who was below the age of 18 on the date of commission.
- Section 10: Children apprehended for any offence must not be placed in police lock-ups or jails. They must be presented before the Juvenile Justice Board.
- Section 14 & 15: Offences are classified into petty, serious, and heinous. Theft of low-value goods is generally considered petty or serious based on value and intent. Since this is likely a petty offence, rehabilitation measures should be considered.
- Section 18: The Juvenile Justice Board may pass orders such as counselling, group therapy, or community service, depending on the circumstances, instead of imposing punishment.
C. Constitution of India
- Article 15(3): The State is empowered to make special provisions for children.
- Article 39(e) & (f): Ensures that children are not forced by economic necessity to enter vocations unsuited to their age and strength, and are protected against exploitation and moral abandonment.
D. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
India, being a signatory, is obligated to treat children in conflict with law with dignity, ensuring they are rehabilitated, reintegrated, and given opportunities for correction and improvement.
4. Possible Judgement and Outcome
Based on the facts and applicable laws:
- The 9-year-old boy is below 12, and his criminal liability depends on his mental maturity. However, as per Section 83 IPC, the court will assess whether he understood the gravity of his actions.
- The 12-year-old may be presumed to have some degree of understanding, but again, maturity is key. If it is shown he acted under peer pressure or without real comprehension, the benefit of doubt may be granted.
- Given the low gravity of the offence (no violence, small theft, no organized crime), and considering their age, the Juvenile Justice Board may rule that: “The boys are declared as children in conflict with law under Section 2(35) of the Juvenile Justice Act. Given the petty nature of the offence and their tender age, both shall undergo counselling, be placed under parental or guardian supervision, and may be required to attend community service or skill development workshops as part of their rehabilitation.”
This approach is in line with India’s child-centric justice system, prioritizing reformation over retribution.
Mnemonic to Remember Legal Framework – “JIPC CARE”
Use “JIPC CARE” to remember the legal framework relevant to this case:
- J – Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
- I – IPC Section 82 & 83 (age & maturity test)
- P – Petty Offences – Rehabilitation, not Punishment
- C – Constitution Articles 15(3), 39(e)(f)
- C – Child in Conflict with Law – Section 2(35)
- A – Assessment by Juvenile Justice Board
- R – Reformative approach over punitive
- E – Education & counselling orders instead of jail
