Gujarat High Court cancels a 2010 rape FIR filed against a minor boy aged 10 and a half. The Court said the police ignored key IPC law meant to protect children from criminal liability.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has quashed a rape case that was registered way back in 2010 against a boy who was only 10 and a half years old at the time of the alleged incident.
The ruling came from Justice JC Doshi, who strongly observed that the police official who had filed the FIR (First Information Report) might not have had proper knowledge of Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
As per the law under Section 83 IPC, a child aged above 7 years but below 12 years is presumed to lack criminal intent unless proven otherwise with evidence that the child was mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of the act.
The Court clearly stated:
“The FIR itself records that the petitioner was 11 years old at the time of incident. It is not the case of the prosecution that forensic test was carried out at the relevant time that whether the petitioner was though 11 years old at the time of alleged incident, was mature enough to understand the consequences of the alleged act. According to this Court, the PI, Bhaktinagar Police Station must not have knowledge of section 83 of the IPC or filing of FIR is in defiance of section 83 of the IPC.”
With this view, the Court not only quashed the FIR but also ordered to completely remove the accused’s name from police and court records.
It added:
“The concerned investigating officer as well as learned trial Court is directed to remove / delete name of the petitioner from the police records, investigation papers as well as Court records to protect identity of the petitioner.”
Additionally, the High Court Registry was also instructed to ensure that the case title is anonymised and the petitioner’s name is deleted from computer records.
The details from the case revealed that the incident happened while the children were playing a game called ‘doctor doctor’, and the victim, a girl who was six and a half years old, had alleged that the act was committed under the instigation of the boy’s mother.
The boy, through his legal counsel, had approached the Gujarat High Court in 2013 seeking to cancel the FIR. His argument was based on the claim that before starting prosecution, the police was legally required to confirm whether the boy understood the seriousness of his actions, which had not been done in this case.
On the other hand, the complainant’s side argued that the boy had committed a serious offence and there should be a presumption of maturity in his case.
However, in 2014, the Gujarat High Court had already put a stay on the trial while the petition to quash the FIR was under consideration. At that time, the Court had noted:
“In absence of the foundation of the petitioner’s psyche as on the date of the commission of the alleged evidence, no presumption prima facie would arise against the petitioner under Section 83 of I.P.C. The petitioner has thus made out a strong case for stay of his prosecution. Under the circumstances, the trial and proceedings against the petitioner arising out of First Information Report being I-C.R.No. 8 of 2010 registered with Mahila Police Station, District Rajkot, is stayed till final hearing of this petition.”
Finally, after more than a decade of legal battle, the petition was allowed and the FIR was dismissed.
What is Section 83 IPC?
Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides conditional legal immunity to children between the ages of 7 and 12 years, depending on their mental maturity.
Section 83 IPC – Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding
“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 the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.”
Explanation in Simple Terms:
If a child is between 7 and 12 years old, they cannot be held criminally responsible unless it is proven that they had enough maturity to understand what they were doing and the consequences of that act.
If the child did not have that level of understanding, then the act is not considered a criminal offence under Indian law.
Why It Matters:
The law recognizes that children in this age group may not always understand right from wrong. Therefore, unlike adults, they are not presumed to have criminal intent unless there is specific proof of maturity.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan: “Vedas Will Always Protect Their Devotees”
- Petitioner (accused) was represented by Advocate Virat G Popat
- Complainant was represented by Advocate Tarjani K Anjaria
- Prosecution was represented by Advocate Chintan Dave.
CASE TITLE:
ABC vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Rape Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
