{"id":4276,"date":"2024-12-28T23:52:16","date_gmt":"2024-12-28T18:22:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=4276"},"modified":"2024-12-28T23:53:27","modified_gmt":"2024-12-28T18:23:27","slug":"kakoo-v-the-state-of-himachal-pradesh-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2024\/12\/28\/kakoo-v-the-state-of-himachal-pradesh-1976\/","title":{"rendered":"Kakoo v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (1976)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Author \u00a0Mitali Ambre<\/strong>, a TYLLB Student of University of Mumbai<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Facts of the Case :\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n
    \n
  1. \n
    The basic Representative information of the parties are as follows –\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n
    Citation: AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1991, 1977 SCJ 114, (1976) 2 SCC 215, 1976\u00a0 SCC(CRI) 270, ILR 1976 HP 97\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
  3. \n
    Bench : P.N. SHINGHAL, R.S. SARKARIA\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
  4. \n
    The event of the case are as follows –\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    The Petitioner, Kakoo, a 13 years old boy living in Himachal Pradesh. He was convicted of\u00a0 committing rape on the 2 years old Girl Child. The case was first tried in the High Court of\u00a0 Himachal Pradesh which pronounced the judgement against the petitioner with 4 years rigorous\u00a0 imprisonment. Under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, the appellate appeals to this Hon’ble\u00a0 court to grant Special Leave.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    Issue of the Case:\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n
    The issue that the Petitioner\u2019s Legal representative, Mr. Kohli raised were the appellant was 13\u00a0 years old at the time of commission of the crime, who is considered juvenile. According to the\u00a0 section 82 & 83 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 a juvenile who has committed the offence is not\u00a0 treated as criminal.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    Law<\/b>:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    The Law point on this case involves Concept of Doli Incapax which is mentioned under Section\u00a0 82 & 83 of the Indian Penal Code.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    According to Section 82 & 83 provides that any child who is below 7 years, commits crime that\u00a0 child can not be treated as criminal or cannot be punished. If the child is between the age 7 to 12\u00a0 & doesn\u2019t have the capability to understand the consequence of the offensive action, that child\u00a0 will not be punished & treated as criminal.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    Doli Incapax\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n
    Meaning <\/b>\u2013 Doli Incapax means Incapable of wrongdoing. It is used to protect children held\u00a0 responsible for criminal actions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    The Crime is defined by a famous legal maxim \u201cActus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,\u201d\u00a0 which means one cannot be guilty of a crime unless there is guilty mind & guilty action. In this\u00a0 terminology, guilty mind represents that intention to commit the crime & guilty action represents\u00a0 the actual commission of the crime.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    \u00a0In Doli Incapax, there is Actus rea but absence of Mens rea as the child is incapable &\u00a0 immature to develop the cruelty in their mind. Therefore it is for the protection of the children to\u00a0 be not treated as criminal but to reform them.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    Provisions regarding Doli Incapax in the Juvenile justice (Care & Protection) Act,2000:\u00a0 <\/b>According to Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection for Children) Act, 2000, 18 years is the age of\u00a0 Criminal Responsibility. Before 18 years children can be protected by Doli Incapax.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code:\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n
    Section 82 is considered as General Exception. This section give arise to absolute immunity to\u00a0 any child aged below 7 years for considered guilty & Criminal for the offence. This section is\u00a0 inserted due to the children below age 7 years cannot understand the consequence of their\u00a0 actions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
    Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code:\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n
    According to this section, any child aged between 7 \u2013 12 years convicted of a crime will be\u00a0 granted partial immunity. For acquiring immunity through this section required to fulfill 2 basis\u00a0 \u2013\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      \n
    1. \n
      The Child should be in the said age category\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
    2. \n
      The child should not have attended the level of maturity to understand the consequence of\u00a0 their actions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      Case Laws aws regarding Doli Incapax\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n
      – Ram Dhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh :\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Ram Dhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 1197 [India]\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 1972, the judgement of this case was pronounced stating the application of Section 83 of the\u00a0 IPC, which requires the prosecution\u2019s legal representative to prove the minor hasn\u2019t attained the\u00a0 level of maturity. While helding the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court of India acquitted the child & stated\u00a0 that the confession should be taken in judicial settings without inducement.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      – Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar :\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 2236 [India]\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 1977, The Hon\u2019ble Court held that the children below the age of 7 years & are considered\u00a0 incapable of committing any crime mentioned under Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      – Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan :\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 2 SCC 626 [India]\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 1982, The Hon\u2019ble Court held that the age of the offender at the time of commissioning the\u00a0 crime and the application of the doli incapax doctrine in the criminal Responsibility of juvenile.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      – Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (1984) 2 SCC 665 [India]\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 1984, The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court stated that the issue of a minor being tried as like that of an\u00a0 adult, ruling that if anyone is a minor at the time of the commission of an offense, they should be\u00a0 tried as minor under section 2(35) of the Juvenile Justice Act.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      – Sheila Barse v. Union of India:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Sheila Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1773 [India]<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 1986, The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court addresses the importance & requirement for the special\u00a0 treatment of Children in conflict with the statute & aligning with the key aspects of doli incapax.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      – Ramesh v. State of Haryana:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Ramesh v. State of Haryana, (2001) 5 SCC 638 [India]\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 2001, The Hon\u2019ble Court held that the minor should not be seen as same as an adults in the\u00a0 criminal matters & reflect the application of the key aspects of doli incapax.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      – Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand:\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 [India]\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 2005, The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court emphasized the issue of minor\u2019s offence and to understand\u00a0 the sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection for Children) Act, addressing that a child\u00a0 under the age of 18 years is considered to be doli incapax.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      – Raghbir v. State of Haryana :\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Raghbir v. State of Haryana, (2007) 8 SCC 551 [India]\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 2007, This case on spotlight on the application of Section 82 which is for doli incapax for\u00a0 children aged between 7 \u2013 12 years, where the prosecution side requires to give valid evidence\u00a0 that the minor is capable of form mens rea.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      – Subramanian Swamy v. Raju :\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 12 SCC 674 [India]\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 2014, this case which has the involvement of the Nirbhaya gang rape case, where the\u00a0 applicant raise to questioned at reducing the age limit for juvenile Criminals was argued which\u00a0 further leads to the amendments in the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection for Children) Act,\u00a0 but readdressing the applicability of doli incapax doctrine for certain age groups.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      – Sambhaji Kamble v. State of Maharashtra:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Sambhaji Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 5 SCC 466 [India]\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      In 2020, The Hon\u2019ble High Court of Bombay scrutinized the theory of doli incapax concerning a\u00a0 juvenile\u2019s involvement in committing the offence and reinforced the statutory protections\u00a0 provided for minors under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection for Children) Act.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Petitioner\u2019s Argument:\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n
      Mr. Kohli, the legal representative of the appellant, writes in his submit that if the punishment is\u00a0 to reform the prisoner or offender then they can be reclaimed in the society. Through such\u00a0 rigorous imprisonment to a boy aged 13 years, living with Criminals for longer period would\u00a0 cause adverse effect on the Child & demolished the primary object of reformative theory. He\u00a0 further continued the statement concluded with a plea to reduce the imprisonment period &\u00a0 rigorous nature of the punishment.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Respondent\u2019s Argument:\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n
      Learned Counsel, as the Legal Representative of the State, writes in his submission that the Child\u00a0 offender was capable of understanding the consequences of his action. Due to which when\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      committing the crime, he was engross to the point that the victim\u2019s mother have to struggle to\u00a0 dragged the baby away from the grip of the offender.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Analysis<\/b>:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      The Bench while deciding this case stated that the crime done in a sadistic manner which steel\u00a0 the heart of law but this cannot overshadowed the fact that the offender committed the crime at\u00a0 13 years. Enactments regarding section 82 & 83 of the Indian Penal Code have been passed in\u00a0 several states of India but there is no enactment in force for such in Himachal Pradesh.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Conclusion<\/b>:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
      Taking all into account, Justice P.N. SHINGHAL & Justice R.S. SARKARIA held that the\u00a0 imprisonment period of the child offender to be reduced to 1 year & a compensation of \u20b92,000\u00a0 shall be given to the victim\u2019s mother. If there is a delay or default in paying the compensation\u00a0 amount then it will result into additional 6 months of rigorous imprisonment period to the child\u00a0 offender.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Author \u00a0Mitali Ambre, a TYLLB Student of University of Mumbai Facts of the Case :\u00a0 The basic Representative information of the parties are as follows –\u00a0 Citation: AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1991, 1977 SCJ 114, (1976) 2 SCC 215, 1976\u00a0 SCC(CRI) 270, ILR 1976 HP 97\u00a0 Bench : P.N. SHINGHAL, R.S. SARKARIA\u00a0 The event of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4174,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[97],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4276"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4276"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4276\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4280,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4276\/revisions\/4280"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4174"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}