The perpetrators of New Delhi gang rape included a minor, one out of six, who was more aggressively involved in the act. He is in jail meant for juvenile delinquents. A sort of debate is going on every where whether or not he is liable to be awarded punishment at par with the adult ones involved. The common opinion that is emerging from different corners is in favour of giving him the maximum most punishment of death where the laws of the country may come in the way. The relative laws provide maximum punishment of 3 years imprisonment in the case of the criminal who happens to be a minor one. Why such a relaxation was prescribed by the Law?. Obviously it was for the simple reason that minors are normally not supposed to indulge in to graver sort of criminal activities. In the instant case, the criminal who happened to be a minor one, or he only claims so to secure a lenient punishment, committed the act much more barbarically compared to his other adult culprits. This should be in fact the very criminal act that should count and not the age. The Law stipulates two different types of a cognizance for killing some body accidentally or in self defence, and killing some body intentionally. Intentional killing is considered to be more heinous a crime than the one that is accidental. In the case of New Delhi gang rape, whatever the criminals did, including the so called minor one, they did it with full intention for the purpose. The issue actually requires not much of any debate as there are ample instances available globally. There are countries, including America and Britain, where their Law clearly provides that if some body is involved in some heinous crime but happens to be a minor, he has to be tried as an adult only. In the instant case, nothing less than a deterrent punishment like a death sentence is the uppermost need.