According to National Crime Record Bureau, 2011 the
percentage of juvenile crimes to total crimes is around 1%
during 2001 to 2011. However the increasing trend in the
crime of murder, rape and another crime under IPC remains a
matter of grave concern. The juvenile IPC crimes in 2011 have
increased by 10.5% over 2010 as during 2010 22,740 IPC
crimes by juveniles were registered which increased to 25,125
cases in 2011.3 This put the judiciary and legislature in a state of
quandary as to at what point of life of a person he should be
considered to be mentally upright to understand an act and its
consequences. With recent cases of deplorable acts by juveniles
against humanity itself, special reference to Nirbhaya case where
a young woman was subjected to inhumane torture and pain
by the offenders one of who was a juvenile, which ultimately
resulted into death of the victim, a necessary dilemma arises
that whether the age of juvenility shall be reduced from
eighteen years to sixteen years.
According to the reformist and the restorative schools of
thought the object of punishment the one where the offender
is reformed and brought back to the normal functioning of the
society. Punishment is not always an effective response to
youths’ behaviour. According to sociologist Edwin Lemert claims
that through repeated interaction between someone identified
as deviant and authority figures which involves labelling, the
individual recognises his identity around a more deviant role,
thus this increases the likelihood of further acts of deviance4.
Punishment is a means to attain the end of peaceful and
civilised society. To attain the said end punishment can vary in
its form as to proportionately address the criminal act. Indian
penal system provides for punishments ranging from monetary
fine, simple and rigorous imprisonment to imprisonment for life
and also death sentence. A rider attached here is the quantum
of punishment has to be decided by the Court after pondering
over the facts and circumstances of the case, mental and
physical status of the convict, age of the convict and other
relevant factors. Also these factors are taken into consideration
for dilution of punishment for a criminal act. Likewise
punishment given to delinquent juvenile shall depend on the
factor instrumental in making delinquent rather than on the
offences committed. This renders the argument fallacious that
person of age of eighteen years who is legally eligible to elect
his representative is also suppurate enough to calculate the risk
of an act of criminal character and therefore shall be tried
under the Indian penal system as an adult. Majorly the gravity of
the crime, the inherent characteristics of brutality and depravity
is considered to be a parameter of the culpability of the
perpetrator. It would not be a smooth sailing to determine a
specific age for mental discretion.
In common parlance the maturity of a juvenile is measured in
terms of information he holds. In a scientifically advanced
society of ours were social media is in easy reach of everybody,
to