A boy over 11 years and below 12 years of age picked up a knife and proceeding towards the deceased with a threatening gesture saying that he would cut him into pieces actually stabs him to death. Is he guilty of murder? Give reasons.

Question: A boy over 11 years and below 12 years of age picked up a knife and proceeding towards the deceased with a threatening gesture saying that he would cut him into pieces actually stabs him to death. Is he guilty of murder? Give reasons. [D.J.S. 1996]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A boy over 11 years and below 12 years of age picked up a knife and proceeding towards the deceased with a threatening gesture saying that he would cut him into pieces actually stabs him to death. Is he guilty of murder? Give reasons.]

Answer

As per Section 83 of IPC, a child above 7 years of age and under 12 enjoys qualified immunity and cannot be convicted unless it is expressly found that the child has attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of acts done.

This section contemplates that the child should not know the natural and physical consequences of his conduct.

The given proposition is the facts of the case, Ulla Mahapatra v. The King, AIR 1950 Ori 261. In this case, a boy over 11 years but below 12 years of age advanced towards the deceased with a knife in his hand with a threatening gesture saying that he would cut him to bits and cut him to death.

It was held in this case that, his entire action could only lead to one inference, namely, that he did what he intended to do and that he knew all the time that a blow inflicted with a knife would give effect to his intention. He was convicted of murder.

Where a child of nine years of age stole a necklace worth Rs. 12-18 and immediately afterward sold it to the accused of Rs. 5, the child was discharged under this section.

But the accused was convicted because the act of the child, though under twelve years of age, showed that he had attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct and that the act of the child was, therefore, theft, and that the accused was rightly convicted of receiving stolen property.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions