P L D 1954 Lahore 73 (PLP)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑Age of accused 16 years‑Under law sentence of death can be passed on culprit tinder 18 years of age‑Practice of Court, stated. It is, no doubt, true that the general practice of Courts is not to send boys under 18 years of age to the gallows but there is no provision in law that a sentence of death cannot be passed on a culprit who is under 18 years of age. The question of the proper sentence in each case must depend on the circumstances of that case. The circumstances in present case are that a boy about 10 years of age was shot at as if his life was not entitled to any more sanctity than that of a lower animal. Then there is the fact that in addition to being cruel the misdeed was very daring. The life of an innocent boy who had done appellant absolutely no harm was taken in a very cruel, cowardly and dastardly mariner and we can see no justification in law why the normal sentence of death should not be imposed on appellant who exhibited the cruelty of a callous full grown man. H. S. Suhrawardy and K. A. Rahim for Appellants. S. K. Ahmad for the Advocate General for Respondent. SHABIR AHMAD, J. * * * * This only leaves the question of sentence to be disposed of. In this connection it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants at some length that as Khalas Khan appellant was under 18 years of age and a minor, the extreme penalty should not be exacted from him. Before the Committing 'Magistrate Khalas Khan gave his age as 16 or 17 years and the estimate was formed of his age when he appeared before us on more than one occasion was that he was by no means under 17 years of age. It would have been better if some medical evidence with regard to the age of Khalas Khan had been brought on the record, but this was not done either by the prosecution, the defence or the trial Court. We proceed on the basis that at the time of the commission of the offence Khalas Khan was about 16 years of age: The question that arises is whether because of his being under 18 years of age Khalas Khan is entitled to be spared the extreme but normal penalry for the intentional killing of a human being. It is no doubt, true that the general practice of Courts is not to send boys under 18 years of age to the gallows but there is no provision in law that a sentence of death cannot be passed on a culprit who is under 18 years of age. The question of the proper sentence in each case must depend on the circumstances of that case. The circumstances in the present case are that a boy about 10 years of age was shot at as if his life was not entitled to any more sanctity than that of a lower animal. Then there is the fact that in addition to being cruel the misdeed was very daring. The life of an innocent boy who had done Khalas Khan appellant absolutely no harm was taken in a very cruel, cowardly and dastardly manner and' we can see no justification in law why the normal sentence of death should not be imposed on Khalas Khan appellant who exhibited the cruetly of a callous full grown man. If intentional killing by boys under 18 years of age were not to receive sentence of death it would lead to such boys being employed for the commission of murders. As we find no legal justification for not exacting from Khalas Khan appel lant the extreme but the normal penalty for his killing an innocent boy, we confirm the sentence of death imposed on him for the offence of murder. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.