Introduction
Sections 20 and 21 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deal with the criminal liability of children and form part of the General Exceptions under the BNS. These provisions are based on the principle that a child may not always possess the mental capacity necessary to understand the nature and consequences of his or her conduct.
The law therefore recognises that age and maturity are important factors in determining criminal responsibility.
Thus, Sections 20 and 21 recognise childhood, age and mental maturity as important considerations in criminal responsibility and provide protection where the legal requirements of these General Exceptions are satisfied.
Section 20 BNS — Act of a Child Under Seven Years of Age
Bare Act Language
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.”
Section 20 creates a complete general exception for a child who is under seven years of age. The basic idea is that a child below this age is treated by law as incapable of having the level of understanding required for criminal responsibility.
Meaning of Section 20 in Simple Language
Section 20 means that when an act is committed by a child below seven years of age, that act is not treated as an offence under the BNS.
The law does not require the court to separately examine whether the particular child understood what he or she was doing. The age itself is sufficient to attract the protection of Section 20.
For example, if a child who is six years old causes damage to someone’s property, the child cannot be held criminally liable for that act under Section 20 merely because the act itself would otherwise constitute an offence.
Complete Exemption from Criminal Liability
The protection under Section 20 is complete for a child under seven years of age.
This means that once it is established that the child was under seven years of age at the relevant time, the question of whether the child possessed sufficient maturity or understood the consequences of the act does not arise under Section 20.
The court does not have to conduct a separate inquiry into the child’s mental maturity for applying this provision.
Important Point
Under 7 years → Section 20 applies on the basis of age itself.
This is different from Section 21, where the maturity of the child becomes important.
Age as the Basis of the Exception
The most important requirement of Section 20 is the age of the child.
The Bare Act simply provides:
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.”
Therefore, the relevant question is whether the child was under seven years of age when the act was committed.
The provision does not say that the child must prove that he or she lacked understanding. The statutory age limit itself creates the protection.
Simple Example
Suppose A is 6 years and 10 months old when he commits an act which would ordinarily amount to an offence.
Since A is under seven years of age, Section 20 applies.
Now suppose A commits the same act after turning 7 years old. Section 20 can no longer be used merely because A is still a young child. At that stage, Section 21 may become relevant if the child is under twelve and lacks sufficient maturity of understanding.
No Requirement to Prove Maturity
Section 20 does not require an inquiry into the child’s maturity.
This is one of the most important differences between Sections 20 and 21.
For a child under seven:
Age is sufficient.
For a child above seven but under twelve:
Age + sufficient maturity of understanding become relevant.
Therefore, if a child is under seven, it is not necessary to establish that the child did not understand the nature or consequences of the conduct.
Concept of Doli Incapax
Section 20 is based on the traditional legal principle known as doli incapax.
The Latin expression doli incapax broadly means:
“Incapable of having a guilty mind.”
The principle is based on the idea that a very young child does not possess the necessary mental capacity or understanding to be held criminally responsible for his or her conduct.
In simple terms:
A very young child is presumed by law to lack the capacity necessary for criminal responsibility.
Section 20 gives statutory recognition to this principle by providing that an act done by a child under seven years of age is not an offence.
Why Does the Law Recognise Doli Incapax?
Criminal liability generally involves more than merely establishing that a prohibited act occurred. The law also considers the person’s mental capacity and state of mind.
A very young child may not have sufficient understanding of:
- what the conduct actually means;
- whether the conduct is wrong;
- what consequences may follow from the conduct; and
- the seriousness of the conduct.
Because of this limited capacity, the law does not treat a child below the statutory age in the same manner as an adult offender.
Section 20 therefore reflects the principle that criminal responsibility should correspond with the capacity to understand one’s conduct.
Doli Incapax Under Section 20 and Section 21
The concept becomes clearer when Sections 20 and 21 are compared.
| Section 20 | Section 21 |
|---|---|
| Child under 7 years | Child above 7 but under 12 years |
| Protection is based on age | Protection depends upon age + maturity |
| No separate inquiry into maturity | Court considers sufficient maturity of understanding |
| Doli incapax operates strongly | The principle operates subject to the child’s actual maturity |
| Complete statutory protection | Conditional protection |
Thus, Section 20 represents the stronger and clearer age-based protection, while Section 21 deals with the more flexible situation involving children between seven and twelve years.
What Does “Under Seven Years” Mean?
The expression “under seven years of age” means that the child has not completed seven years of age at the time of the act.
Therefore, a child who has already completed seven years cannot claim Section 20 merely because he or she is still very young.
Once the child crosses the seven-year threshold, the relevant provision becomes Section 21, subject to its conditions.
Relevant Age Is the Age at the Time of the Act
The important consideration is the child’s age when the conduct took place.
For example, if a child commits an act at the age of 6 years and 11 months, Section 20 is applicable even if the child turns seven before the matter is brought before the court.
The subsequent increase in age does not change the child’s age at the time when the act was committed.
Section 20 Does Not Mean the Act Did Not Occur
It is important to understand that Section 20 does not necessarily mean that nothing happened or that the conduct itself did not occur.
The provision means that:
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.”
Therefore, the conduct may have occurred, and it may otherwise resemble conduct that would constitute an offence if committed by a person who is criminally responsible. However, Section 20 prevents criminal liability from arising against the child because of the child’s age.
Simple Example
Suppose A, aged six years, takes another person’s property without permission.
If the same conduct were committed by a person who is legally capable of criminal responsibility, it could potentially constitute an offence depending upon the facts.
However, because A is under seven years of age, Section 20 applies.
There is no need to prove whether A understood the legal consequences of taking the property.
Under 7 → statutory protection under Section 20.
Section 21 BNS — Act of a Child Above Seven and Under Twelve Years of Age of Immature Understanding
Bare Act Language
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.”
Section 21 is a General Exception dealing with the criminal responsibility of children who are above seven years but under twelve years of age. The provision recognises that children in this age group may differ considerably in their mental development. Therefore, the law does not give an automatic exemption to every child below twelve.
The central question is whether the child had sufficient maturity of understanding to appreciate the nature and consequences of the particular conduct at the time it occurred.
Meaning of Section 21 in Simple Language
In simple words, Section 21 says:
A child who is more than seven but less than twelve years old will not be criminally responsible if, at the time of the act, the child did not have enough maturity to understand what he was doing and what consequences could result from it.
Thus, there are two important elements:
Age: The child must be above 7 and under 12.
Maturity: The child must lack sufficient understanding of the nature and consequences of the conduct.
Therefore, being under twelve years old by itself is not enough to claim the protection.
Why Does Section 21 Exist?
The law recognises that children gradually develop their ability to understand:
- what is right and wrong;
- what they are actually doing;
- whether their conduct may cause harm;
- what consequences may follow from their actions; and
- the seriousness of their conduct.
A child of eight may have a very different level of understanding from a child of eleven.
Even two children of the same age may have different levels of maturity.
Section 21 therefore avoids treating every child between seven and twelve as automatically incapable of understanding their conduct.
Age Requirement Under Section 21
The first requirement is clearly stated in the Bare Act:
“above seven years of age and under twelve years of age”
This creates a specific age bracket.
Child Under Seven
Section 20 applies.
Under 7 → Section 20
Child Above Seven but Under Twelve
Section 21 may apply.
Above 7 but under 12 → Examine maturity
Child Twelve or Above
Section 21 does not apply.
12 or above → Section 21 unavailable
Therefore, Section 21 operates within a limited age range.
Meaning of “Above Seven Years”
“Above seven years” means that the child has completed seven years of age.
For example, a child who is:
- 7 years and 1 month old;
- 8 years old;
- 9 years old;
- 10 years old; or
- 11 years and 11 months old
can potentially fall within Section 21.
But age alone does not determine the result.
Meaning of “Under Twelve Years”
“Under twelve years” means that the child has not completed twelve years of age.
Once the child reaches twelve, Section 21 no longer provides the protection.
Therefore, the relevant age is the child’s age at the time of the conduct.
Maturity of Understanding — The Central Requirement
The most important words in Section 21 are:
“who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding”
The provision therefore focuses on the child’s mental maturity, rather than simply the child’s chronological age.
The question is whether the child possessed enough understanding to appreciate what he or she was doing and what could happen as a result.
What Is “Sufficient Maturity”?
“Sufficient maturity” means adequate understanding for the particular conduct in question.
It does not mean that the child must have the same intellectual ability or legal understanding as an adult.
The law asks whether the child had enough maturity to understand the nature and consequences of the particular act.
For example, a child may understand that taking another person’s property without permission is wrong, but may not understand the serious consequences of a particularly dangerous act.
The assessment therefore depends upon the specific conduct and circumstances.
Understanding Is Different From Mere Intelligence
A child may be intelligent in school or may perform well academically, but that does not automatically establish sufficient maturity for every type of conduct.
Section 21 is concerned with practical understanding of the conduct and its consequences.
The relevant question is not simply:
“Is the child intelligent?”
The more appropriate question is:
“Did the child have sufficient understanding to judge the nature and consequences of this particular conduct?”
“To Judge of the Nature of His Conduct”
The Bare Act refers to:
“the nature … of his conduct”
This concerns the child’s understanding of what he or she was actually doing.
The child should have sufficient understanding of the character or nature of the conduct.
Example
Suppose a child takes another person’s property.
The court may consider whether the child understood that:
- the property belonged to another person;
- the child had no permission to take it; and
- the act was wrongful.
The precise assessment depends on the circumstances.
“Consequences of His Conduct”
Section 21 does not stop at the nature of the act.
It also requires consideration of:
“the consequences of his conduct”
This means the child’s ability to understand the likely results or effects of what he or she is doing.
Example
Suppose a child engages in an extremely dangerous act.
The court may have to consider whether the child understood that the conduct could result in serious injury or other significant harm.
The child need not necessarily understand every possible consequence. The question is whether there was sufficient maturity to appreciate the relevant consequences of the conduct.
Nature and Consequences — The Difference
These two expressions can be remembered very simply:
Nature
“What am I doing?”
Consequences
“What can happen because I am doing it?”
Section 21 requires consideration of both.
A child may understand the physical nature of an act but still lack sufficient maturity to understand its serious consequences.
“On That Occasion” — A Very Important Phrase
The final words of Section 21 are:
“on that occasion.”
These words are extremely important.
They mean that the child’s maturity must be considered in relation to the particular incident.
The court does not simply determine whether the child is generally mature or immature.
Instead, it asks whether the child had sufficient understanding at the time and in the circumstances of that particular conduct.
Why “On That Occasion” Matters
A child’s behaviour and understanding can vary according to circumstances.
For example, a child may normally understand ordinary rules but may fail to appreciate the consequences of a particular dangerous situation.
Therefore, the court must consider:
The child + the particular act + the surrounding circumstances + the child’s understanding at that time.
This makes Section 21 more flexible than the absolute age-based protection under Section 20.
Sufficient Maturity vs Insufficient Maturity
The entire protection depends upon whether the child’s maturity was sufficient.
If maturity was insufficient
If the child was unable to properly judge the nature and consequences of the conduct, Section 21 can provide protection.
If maturity was sufficient
If the child had enough understanding to appreciate the nature and consequences of the conduct, the child cannot claim protection merely because he or she was under twelve.
Thus:
Under 12 does not automatically mean no criminal liability.
Question of Fact
Whether the child had sufficient maturity is essentially a question of fact.
The court must examine the evidence and circumstances of the particular case.
The court may consider matters relevant to the child’s actual understanding, rather than relying solely on chronological age.
The important inquiry is:
Did this particular child, at the time of this particular conduct, have sufficient maturity to judge its nature and consequences?
Burden of Establishing the Exception
Section 21 is a statutory general exception. In criminal law, where an accused relies upon a general exception, the issue is considered in accordance with the rules governing general exceptions under the BNS and the law of evidence.
The practical focus remains on whether the statutory conditions of Section 21 are established on the facts—particularly the child’s age and lack of sufficient maturity of understanding.
Section 21 and Doli Incapax
Section 21 reflects the traditional concept of doli incapax.
Meaning of Doli Incapax
Doli incapax is a Latin expression broadly meaning:
“Incapable of having a guilty mind.”
The underlying idea is that a young child may lack the mental capacity necessary to understand the wrongful nature and consequences of conduct to the extent required for criminal responsibility.
Section 20 provides stronger age-based protection to children under seven.
Section 21 deals with the next age group, where the law recognises that some children may possess sufficient understanding while others may not.
Example Showing Section 21
Suppose A is 9 years old and commits an act which would ordinarily constitute an offence.
The court cannot simply conclude:
“A is under twelve, therefore Section 21 automatically applies.”
Instead, the court must examine whether A had sufficient maturity to understand:
the nature of what he was doing, and
the consequences that could result from it.
If A lacked that maturity, Section 21 may apply.
If A had sufficient maturity to appreciate the nature and consequences of the conduct, Section 21 would not protect A merely because A was nine years old.
Another Example
Suppose B is 11 years old and deliberately engages in conduct that creates a serious risk of injury to another person.
B’s age places him within Section 21.
But the court must still ask:
Did B understand the nature of what he was doing?
Did B understand that his conduct could cause serious harm?
Did B have sufficient maturity to appreciate the consequences?
If the answer is no, Section 21 may provide protection.
If the evidence shows that B had sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences, the exception would not apply merely because he was below twelve.
Section 21 Does Not Say Every Child Under 12 Is Innocent
This is a common misunderstanding.
Section 21 does not say:
“Every child below twelve years cannot commit an offence.”
Instead, it says that protection applies where a child above seven and under twelve has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of the conduct.
Therefore, maturity is the distinguishing factor.
Section 21 and Criminal Intention
Section 21 is concerned with the child’s capacity to understand the nature and consequences of conduct.
This is important because criminal responsibility generally requires the law to consider the mental element associated with the offence.
A child who lacks sufficient maturity may not possess the level of understanding necessary for criminal responsibility in the same manner as a mature person.
Section 21 therefore protects children whose mental development has not reached the required level.
Main Elements of Section 21 BNS
Section 21 contains several important requirements that must be understood together. The protection is available only when the child falls within the prescribed age group and lacks sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of the particular conduct.
Child Above Seven Years and Under Twelve Years
The first requirement is the age of the child. Section 21 applies only to a child who is:
“above seven years of age and under twelve years of age”
This means the child must have completed seven years but must not have completed twelve years when the act was committed.
Age is therefore the starting point for applying Section 21. However, unlike Section 20, age alone does not provide complete protection.
A child who is 6 years old comes under Section 20. A child who is 8, 9, 10 or 11 years old may come under Section 21, but only if the additional requirement relating to maturity is satisfied.
Important Point
Section 21 = Age requirement + Maturity requirement
Simply being below twelve years is not enough to claim the exception.
Absence of Sufficient Maturity of Understanding
The second and most important requirement is that the child:
“has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding”
This means the child must not possess enough mental understanding to properly appreciate the nature and consequences of the conduct.
The law recognises that children between seven and twelve may have different levels of mental development. A child of eight may have considerably less understanding than a child of eleven.
Therefore, the court does not apply one fixed assumption to every child in this age group.
The relevant question is:
Did this particular child have sufficient understanding to appreciate what he or she was doing and what could happen as a result?
If the child had sufficient maturity, Section 21 will not provide protection merely because the child was under twelve.
Ability to Judge the Nature of the Conduct
The Bare Act specifically refers to the ability:
“to judge of the nature”
of the child’s conduct.
The nature of conduct essentially means understanding what the child is actually doing.
The court therefore considers whether the child had enough understanding to appreciate the character and significance of the particular act.
For example, suppose a child deliberately takes an object belonging to another person. The relevant question may include whether the child understood that:
- the object belonged to someone else;
- the child had no right or permission to take it; and
- taking it was wrongful.
The exact assessment will depend upon the facts.
Simple Formula
Nature = “What am I doing?”
Ability to Judge the Consequences of the Conduct
Section 21 does not only require consideration of the nature of the act. It also refers to:
“the consequences of his conduct”
This concerns whether the child could understand the likely results or effects of what he or she was doing.
For example, suppose a child engages in conduct that creates a serious risk of injury to another person. The court may consider whether the child understood that the conduct could cause serious physical harm.
The child does not necessarily have to understand every possible consequence. The relevant issue is whether the child possessed sufficient maturity to appreciate the important and reasonably foreseeable consequences of the particular conduct.
Simple Formula
Consequences = “What can happen because I am doing this?”
Nature and Consequences Must Be Considered Together
The words “nature and consequences” are connected and should not be considered in isolation.
A child may understand the basic nature of an act but may not appreciate its consequences.
For example, a child may understand:
“I am pushing this person.”
But may not understand:
“Pushing this person from this height could cause serious injury.”
Therefore, the court must consider whether the child had sufficient maturity to understand both what the conduct involved and what consequences it could produce.
Maturity Must Be Sufficient, Not Perfect
Section 21 uses the expression:
“sufficient maturity of understanding”
The law does not require the child to possess adult-level intelligence or maturity.
The question is whether the child’s understanding was sufficient for the particular conduct involved.
Therefore, a child does not lose the protection merely because he or she was capable of understanding some aspects of the act.
The relevant question remains whether the child’s understanding was sufficient to judge its nature and consequences.
“On That Occasion” — Particular Circumstances Matter
The Bare Act ends with the important words:
“on that occasion.”
This means the child’s maturity must be examined in relation to the particular incident.
The court is not simply required to decide whether the child is generally intelligent, mature or immature.
Instead, the court considers:
Was the child sufficiently mature to understand this particular conduct in the circumstances in which it occurred?
This makes the assessment case-specific.
Maturity Is Not Determined by Age Alone
Although age is an essential requirement, the court cannot decide the issue of Section 21 merely by looking at the child’s age.
For example, two children may both be 10 years old, but their understanding may differ.
One child may have sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of a particular act, while another may lack that level of understanding.
Therefore:
Age determines whether Section 21 can potentially apply; maturity determines whether the protection actually applies.
Question of Fact
Whether the child possessed sufficient maturity is essentially a question of fact.
The court has to examine the circumstances and determine whether the child actually had the required understanding at the relevant time.
The inquiry is therefore not merely theoretical.
The court must consider the particular child, particular conduct and particular circumstances.
The Core Question Before the Court
Did the child, on that particular occasion, have sufficient maturity to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct?
If the answer is no, Section 21 may protect the child.
If the answer is yes, the protection cannot be claimed merely because the child is below twelve.
The Result of Satisfying All Requirements
When the child is above seven and under twelve years of age and has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of the conduct on that occasion, Section 21 provides the statutory protection.
The Bare Act states:
“Nothing is an offence…”
Therefore, where the requirements of the provision are satisfied, the conduct is protected by the General Exception and the child is not criminally liable for that conduct under the provision.
Difference Between Section 20 and Section 21 BNS
| Basis | Section 20 BNS | Section 21 BNS |
|---|---|---|
| Age | Child under 7 years | Child above 7 but under 12 years |
| Basis of protection | Age alone | Age + maturity of understanding |
| Maturity inquiry | Not required | Required |
| Nature of rule | Complete age-based protection | Conditional protection |
| Mental understanding | Law does not require examination of the child’s maturity | Court considers whether the child had sufficient maturity of understanding |
| Nature of conduct | No need to examine whether the child could judge its nature | Child must lack sufficient ability to judge the nature of the conduct |
| Consequences | No separate inquiry into understanding of consequences | Court considers whether the child could judge the consequences of the conduct |
| Particular occasion | Not relevant to determining maturity | Maturity is judged “on that occasion” |
| Question of fact | Age is the primary determining fact | Maturity and understanding involve a factual assessment |
| Doli incapax | Strong age-based application | Applied subject to the child’s level of maturity |
| Simple rule | Below 7 = Section 20 protection | 7–12 = protection only if sufficient maturity is absent |
FAQs on Sections 20 & 21 BNS — Criminal Liability of Children
1. What do Sections 20 and 21 of the BNS deal with?
Sections 20 and 21 BNS deal with the criminal liability of children and provide General Exceptions based on age and mental maturity.
2. What does Section 20 BNS provide?
Section 20 provides that:
“Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.”
Thus, a child below seven years receives complete protection under this provision.
3. Is maturity required to be proved under Section 20?
No. Section 20 is based on the child’s age. Once it is established that the child was under seven years of age when the act was committed, there is no need to separately examine the child’s maturity of understanding.
4. What does Section 21 BNS provide?
Section 21 protects a child who is above seven years but under twelve years of age if the child has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of the conduct on that particular occasion.
5. Is every child below twelve automatically protected under Section 21?
No. This is an important distinction. A child being under twelve years of age is not by itself sufficient. The child must also lack sufficient maturity to judge the nature and consequences of the conduct.
6. What is meant by “sufficient maturity of understanding”?
It means having enough mental understanding to appreciate what the child is doing and what consequences may result from that conduct. The law does not require the child to possess the same level of understanding as an adult.
7. What does “on that occasion” mean in Section 21?
It means that the child’s maturity is judged in relation to the particular act and circumstances in which it occurred. The court does not simply determine whether the child is generally intelligent or mature.
8. What is the difference between Section 20 and Section 21?
Section 20: Child under 7 years → age-based protection.
Section 21: Child above 7 but under 12 → protection depends upon insufficient maturity of understanding.
Therefore:
Section 20 = Age
Section 21 = Age + Maturity
9. What is doli incapax and how is it connected with Sections 20 and 21?
Doli incapax is a Latin expression meaning “incapable of having a guilty mind.” It reflects the principle that young children may lack the mental capacity necessary for criminal responsibility. Section 20 provides strong age-based protection, while Section 21 applies the principle to the 7–12 age group subject to the child’s maturity.
10. What is the key principle to remember about Sections 20 and 21?
The key principle is:
A child under seven years is protected on the basis of age, whereas a child above seven and under twelve is protected only when the child lacks sufficient maturity to judge the nature and consequences of the conduct on that particular occasion.
