In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court on Wednesday quashed a rape case registered in 2010 against a 10-and-a-half-year-old boy, observing that the police had failed to consider crucial legal safeguards under Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which protects minors who lack maturity to understand the consequences of their actions.
Justice JC Doshi, who presided over the case, remarked that the First Information Report (FIR) itself recorded the petitioner’s age as 11 years at the time of the alleged incident. He noted that there was no forensic or psychological assessment conducted to determine whether the boy had the requisite maturity to understand the nature and consequences of the alleged act.
According to the 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.”
The case originated from a complaint alleging that the minor, while playing a game of ‘doctor doctor’ with a six-and-a-half-year-old girl, was instigated by his mother to engage in inappropriate behavior. The incident was reported in 2010, and the accused had filed a plea for quashing of the FIR in 2013.
During the proceedings, the complainant’s counsel argued that the accused had committed a serious offence and there existed a presumption of maturity. However, the High Court disagreed, stressing that in absence of any psychological foundation establishing the child’s maturity at the time of the act, Section 83 of the IPC would offer immunity.
“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 Court observed in an earlier interim order in 2014, wherein it had stayed the prosecution.
On Wednesday, the Court allowed the petition and directed complete deletion of the boy’s name from all police, court, and computer records. It further ordered the High Court registry to anonymise the case title.
“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,” the order stated.
Advocate Virat G Popat appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Tarjani K Anjaria represented the complainant, while Advocate Chintan Dave appeared on behalf of the prosecution.
Case: ABC vs State of Gujarat & Anr – Available on LAWFYI.IO
