Question

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a 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 misappropriates the money.

• A. Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because, irrespective of the age, stealing is an offence.
• B. Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because he is below 12 years of age.
• C. 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.
• D. 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.

Hint:

When considering whether a child can be held accountable, focus on whether they have sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of their actions.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The principle states that a child under the age of twelve can be protected from legal liability only if they are unable to understand the consequences of their actions. However, in this case, Himesh showed an awareness of the value of the ring and took action with the intent to sell it. Despite being under twelve, his actions indicate that he could understand the wrongfulness of his conduct, and thus he is not protected by the principle.


Option (A) Himesh would not be protected under the principle stated above because, irrespective of the age, stealing is an offence: This is incorrect. The law makes an exception for children under twelve who lack sufficient understanding.

Option (B) Himesh would be protected under the principle stated above because he is below 12 years of age: This is incorrect because the principle only applies if the child lacks the maturity to understand their actions.

Option (C) 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: This is incorrect because Himesh's actions show that he understood the consequences.