Lahore Garrison University

Name: Alisha Ali

F/Name: Muhammad Mansha
Section: B/BS DFCS
Roll No.: Fa22-BS DFCS-066

Subject: Criminal Law & Evidence

Sir.: Suneel Tariq

Assignment#1
 Q: Discuss the defense of minority as provided in section 82 & 83 in PPC. Also
discuss how the section 82 & 83 PPC have been amended by the Criminal Law
(second) Amendment Act 2016? What criticism has been made by legal experts
on these amendments?
Answer:
The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) covers the defense of minorities in criminal cases
in sections 82 and 83. Given their age and ability to comprehend the repercussions
of their acts, they offer protections for juveniles who commit specific crimes.

Paragraph 82 of the PPC:

Section 82 states that nothing is an offense which is done by a child under seven
years of age. This provision grants absolute immunity to children below the age of
seven from criminal liability. The rationale behind this exemption is based on the
presumption that children of such young age lack the mental capacity to form
criminal intent or comprehend the consequences of their actions. This principle
aligns with the understanding that very young children are still in the early stages
of cognitive development, and their actions are often impulsive or unintentional.

Paragraph 83 of the PPC:

Section 83 provides a defense for children above seven years and under eighteen
years of age who have not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge
the nature and consequences of their conduct in the particular circumstances of the
case. This section recognizes that older minors, while more developed than
younger children, may still lack the cognitive maturity required to fully
comprehend the implications of their behavior.

The defense under Section 83 applies if the court is satisfied that, at the time of
committing the act, the child had not attained sufficient maturity to understand the
nature and consequences of the act. This defense is crucial in ensuring that minors
are not held criminally responsible for acts they are incapable of comprehending
due to their developmental stage.

Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act of 2016 Amendments:

These parts have been modified by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act of
2016. The following are the main adjustments made by this amendment:

 Age Range Extension:

Minors under the age of eighteen and over the age of seven are now included
in the Section 83's coverage age range. This increase reflects the realization
that, in some situations, older minors might not have the maturity to
comprehend the implications of their acts.

 Burden of Proof:
The prosecution now has to demonstrate that the kid was old enough to
comprehend the nature of the act and its repercussions. According to this
modification, the prosecution must prove that the minor knew the
seriousness of the crime they had done.
Burden of Proof: The prosecution now has to demonstrate that the kid was
old enough to comprehend the nature of the act and its repercussions.
According to this modification, the prosecution must prove that the minor
knew the seriousness of the crime they did.

Criticism by Legal Experts:

The primary reason legal experts have questioned these modifications is that the
prosecution now has a greater burden of proof. They contend that this change
would make it harder to prosecute instances involving juveniles, especially when
the facts surrounding the child's comprehension are ambiguous and difficult to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are worries that Section 83's extended age range—which covers youngsters
up to the age of eighteen—might be abused as a way to shield elderly people from
punishment for grave crimes. Critics contend that this could weaken the law's
deterrence power and result in older kids committing major crimes going
unpunished. Concerns concerning the ambiguity in defining and evaluating the
"sufficient maturity of understanding" mandated by the modified statute have also
been voiced by certain legal professionals. Due to the subjective nature of this
evaluation, cases involving children may proceed inconsistently or in an unclear
manner.
In conclusion, despite the fact that the modifications to Sections 82 and 83 of the
PPC sought to guarantee a more equitable legal system and strengthen protections
for minors, they have come under fire because of worries about the real-world
effects of the adjustments and possible gaps that might compromise the fair
administration of justice.

Criminal Responsibility:
The legal idea that holds people accountable for their deeds when they
commit crimes is known as criminal liability. It includes the notion that
people who commit crimes are morally reprehensible and need to pay a
price for their deeds.
Determining criminal responsibility usually involves several important
factors:
1. Men Rea, or mental state, describes the state of mind or intention
of the offender at the moment the crime was committed. It could
involve knowing that something was wrong, having the intention
to commit the crime, or acting carelessly with regard to the
repercussions of one's actions.
2. Actus Reus physical act or behavior that gives rise to a crime is
referred to here. The person must not only be in the required
mental state, but also have committed the illegal conduct.
3. People are usually only considered accountable for their deeds if
they are able to comprehend the nature and ramifications of their
conduct. In certain situations, mental incapacity—such as insanity
or a severe intellectual disability—may disprove criminal guilt.
4. The age of the offender may affect their criminal liability in a
number of jurisdictions. Compared to adults, juvenile criminals
may be subject to various legal norms and procedures.

Conclusion:
 The defense of minority provided in Sections 82 and 83 of the Pakistan
Penal Code represents a critical aspect of criminal law aimed at protecting the
rights of minors and ensuring that they are treated with appropriate consideratio n
for their age and level of cognitive development. Section 82 grants
absolute immunity to children under seven years old, recognizing their
limited capacity for criminal intent. Section 83 extends this protection to
older minors between seven and eighteen years old who lack sufficient
maturity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions.

The amendments introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment

Act 2016, particularly the extension of the age range covered by Section
83 and the shift in the burden of proof to the prosecution, were intended
to enhance the effectiveness and fairness of these provisions. However,
these changes have not been without criticism.

Legal experts have expressed concerns about the increased burden on

the prosecution to prove the maturity of the minor, which could pose
practical challenges in assessing the mental state of youthful offenders.
There are also apprehensions regarding the potential misuse of the
defense by older minors capable of understanding the consequences of
their actions, which could undermine accountability and justice in
serious cases.

The subjective nature of "sufficient maturity of understanding" adds

complexity to the application of these provisions, potentially leading to
inconsistency and uncertainty in legal proceedings involving minors.
Furthermore, there are fears that the amendments may dilute the
deterrent effect of criminal law for adolescent offenders, thereby
impacting public safety and the administration of justice.
Moving forward, it is essential for policymakers, legal practitioners, and
stakeholders to engage in ongoing dialogue and evaluation of these
provisions. Balancing the need to protect minors with the imperative of
maintaining accountability and deterrence requires careful consideration
and refinement of the law. Future reforms should aim to address the
criticisms raised by legal experts, ensuring that the defense of minority
remains a fair and effective mechanism within the criminal justice
system while upholding the principles of justice, accountability, and
rehabilitation for youthful offenders. Ultimately, a nuanced and
evidence-based approach is essential to navigate the complexities of
youth criminality and promote a fair and just legal framework for all
individuals, regardless of age.

Regards,
Alisha Ali