Assignment of Law of crime.pptx including Crpc

Trial of a warrant case by magistrate from section 238 to 250

1. ASSIGNMENT OF LAW OF CRIME KHUSHBOO CHOUBEY BBA LL.B (3 rd Sem) Roll no. - 10

2. Hiralal Mallick vs. State of Bihar Citation : 1977 AIR 2236, 1978 SCR (1) 301 Bench : P.K Goswami and V.R. Krishna Iyer Petitioner : Hiralal Mallick vs. Respondent : State of Bihar Date of Judgment : 16 August, 1977

3. Introduction Section 82 of IPC, 1860 states that any offence committed by a child under the age of 7 is not punishable by law. Based on the concept of Doli Incapax, which means incapable of committing any crime. According to section 83, a child above 7 years of age and below 12 years can plead for the defence under this section if they commit any offence. However, it is to be proved that the child has not attained enough maturity to judge the nature and outcomes of his actions.

4. Facts of the case In the case of Hiralal v. State of Bihar, a 12 year old boy, along with his two elder brothers, was charged with the homicide of Arjan Mallick, and they were convicted under Section 302 and Section 34 of the IPC. Hiralal had caused fatal injuries to Arjan’s neck with a sharp weapon as an act of revenge and then fled the scene with his brothers. Considering Hiralal’s age, the High court reduced his sentence to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court.

5. Issues Whether the accused can claim the exception under section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Whether the actus reus of a child can account for means rea? Whether the crime committed by the accused should only be under sec. 324 and not more?

6. Petitioner’s Argument The petitioner’s argument in Hiralal Mallick case in IPC was that he was not guilty of the offence of murder under sec. 302 IPC, but only of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under sec. 304 IPC. The petitioner contended that he had no intention to kill the victim, but only to cause bodily injury. He also claimed that he acted in self defence, as the victim had attacked him first with a knife. The petitioner further argued that the medical evidence did not prove that the injury caused by him was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

7. Respondent’s Argument The respondent’s argument of Hiralal Mallick case of IPC was that he was too young and immature to understand the consequences of his actions, and that he only cause minor injuries to the victim. The respondent claimed that he should be charged under sec. 324 IPC, which deals with causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, rather than sec. 326 IPC, which deals with causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The respondent also argued that he was influenced by his elder brothers, who had a motive of revenge against the victim, and that he acted in a moment of impulse without any intention to kill.

8. Judgment The judgment of the Hiralal Mallick case of IPC was delivered by the Supreme Court of India on August 16, 1977. The court dismissed the appeal of Hiralal Mallick, a 12-year-old boy who was convicted of causing grievous hurt with a sword to another person. The court upheld his conviction under Section 326 IPC and reduced his sentence to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also prescribed some guidelines for his treatment in jail, such as providing him with education, vocational training, and psychological counseling .  The court emphasized the need for a correctional and rehabilitative approach in sentencing juvenile offenders. The court also highlighted that in cases where a crime is committed by a group of individuals acting together, the degree of criminal responsibility may differ based on each persons role and the circumstances surrounding the crime and the applicability of Doli Incapax maxim.

9. Conclusion The Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant. It was held that the prima facie interference that the appellant had the intent to endanger the life of the deceased stands unrebutted. Moreover, no evidence was shown addressing the age of the appellant or the lack of his sufficient maturity at the time of the commission of the offence. Section 83, on the other hand, recognizes the possible liability of children aged 7 to 12 subject to their maturity and grasp of the nature and consequences of their actions.