Trial of a warrant case by magistrate from section 338 to 350

1. ASSIGNMENT OF LAW OF CRIME
KHUSHBOO CHOUBEY
BBA LL.B (3rd 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.