Except in case of sexual offences, the consent of a child would be a valid consent in the eyes of the law when the child is above

Correct option is C

The correct option is (c) 12 years of age.

Explanation:

• According to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically under Section 28, the law defines what does not constitute valid consent.
• Clause (c) of Section 28 explicitly states that a consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of the Sanhita "if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age" (unless the contrary appears from the context).
• This means that for general acts (excluding specific sexual offences where the age of consent is higher), the law presumes that a child below the age of 12 lacks the maturity to understand the nature and consequences of an act. Therefore, once a child crosses the threshold of 12 years, their consent can be legally recognized for acts that do not intend to cause death or grievous hurt (such as playing a sport or undergoing a minor medical procedure).

Information Booster:

The BNS 2023 provides a framework for how consent interacts with criminal liability through several key sections:

• Section 27 (Benefit of the Child): For children under 12 years of age, a lawful act done in good faith for their benefit is not an offence if the guardian gives consent. This covers situations like a parent consenting to a surgery for their child.
• Section 25 (Sports and Amusement): This allows for implied consent in activities like fencing or football, but it primarily refers to persons above 18 years of age for suffering harm intended by the doer.
• Invalid Consent (Section 28): Consent is legally void if:
1. Given under fear of injury or misconception of fact.
2. Given by a person of unsound mind or in a state of intoxication.
3. Given by a child under 12 years of age.

Additional Knowledge: