Question

Principle : Nothing is an offence which is done by child under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Facts : Himesh, $11$ years old boy, picks up a gold ring worth Rs.$5000$/- lying on a table in his friend's house and immediately sells it for Rs.$2000$/-, and misappropriated the money.

• A. Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because he is below $12$ years of age.
• B. Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
• C. Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.
• D. Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because, irrespective of the age, stealing is an offence.

Answer 1

Answer: (C)

Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.

Under section 83 of Indian Penal code defines nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion.
The reasonable conclusion drawn Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because his acts show that he was not sufficiently mature to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct.