2015 PLP 955 (SCMR)
SHER BAHADUR — Appellant Versus FAYYAZ and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 955 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Dost Muhammad Khan and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ |
| Parties | SHER BAHADUR — Appellant Versus FAYYAZ and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 955 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 955 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Dost Muhammad Khan and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 955 (SCMR) (SHER BAHADUR — Appellant Versus FAYYAZ and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 2015.
- Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- 3. In the above circumstances, with the consent of learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent. No.1, and the learned State Counsel, the impugned judgment is set aside and Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2011 is sent back to the Peshawar High 'Court for its hearing afresh, after calling for ossification report etc of respondent No.1 through a Medical Board of Specialist doctors in the required field, from Khyber Medical College, Peshawar; verification of authenticity of the two documents, relied upon by respondent No.1 before the High Court and also providing fair opportunity to prosecution/complainant to rebut the assertion of respondent No.1 about his age. We expect that this whole exercise will be completed within three months before hearing the appeal on merits.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27-5-2014 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr. A. No. 232 of 2011 and Cr. R. No. 89 of 2011)
S. 302(b)
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.2(b)
Qatl-i-amd
Juvenile, determination of
Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to accused by Trial Court was set aside by High Court on the ground of his being juvenile at the time of occurrence
High Court should not have taken the issue of lack of jurisdiction of Trial Court regarding actual age of accused so lightly
Reliance placed upon by High Court on two documents produced by accused was not safe for striking down the judgment of his conviction rather further inquiry in the matter was required to do complete justice between the parties
Supreme Court, with the consent of parties, set aside judgment passed by High Court and remanded the matter to High Court for its hearing afresh, after calling for ossification report etc. of accused through medical board of specialist doctors in the required field
Supreme Court directed verification of authenticity of two documents relied upon by accused before High Court and also providing fair opportunity to prosecution/complainant to rebut assertion of accused about his age
Appeal was allowed. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
This criminal appeal with leave of the Court arises out of the judgment dated 27-5-2014, in Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2011 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby the conviction of respondent No.1, under section 302(b), P.P.C. recorded by the learned Additional Session Judge-II, Swabi vide judgment dated 30-3-2011, awarding him sentence of imprisonment for life with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., and payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000 was set aside, on the sole ground that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with his trial as the appellant at the time of commission of crime was a 'child' within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, therefore, he could not have been tried before the said Court. It seems that for this purpose the High Court has relied upon the school leaving certificate and CNIC of respondent No.1 on its face value, without due verification of their genuineness and authenticity, least realizing that manipulation of such documents, in the present day scenario is not a big deal.
2. Admittedly, in the present case the incident had taken place on 12-8-2008 and after the arrest of respondent No.1 on 5-12-2009 he was tried and convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30-3-2011, but throughout this period at no stage of the proceedings he had taken the plea about lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court, he being a juvenile offender. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court qua actual age of respondent No.1 so lightly. In our opinion, reliance placed upon by the High Court on two documents produced by respondent No.1 was not safe for striking down the judgment of his conviction rather further inquiry in the matter was required to do complete justice between the parties.
3. In the above circumstances, with the consent of learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent. No.1, and the learned State Counsel, the impugned judgment is set aside and Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2011 is sent back to the Peshawar High 'Court for its hearing afresh, after calling for ossification report etc of respondent No.1 through a Medical Board of Specialist doctors in the required field, from Khyber Medical College, Peshawar; verification of authenticity of the two documents, relied upon by respondent No.1 before the High Court and also providing fair opportunity to prosecution/complainant to rebut the assertion of respondent No.1 about his age. We expect that this whole exercise will be completed within three months before hearing the appeal on merits.
4. As a result of this judgment, short order dated 27-5-2014 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.89 of 2011 filed by the appellant for seeking enhancement in the sentence of respondent No.1 is also set aside, and it is also restored to its original position for hearing afresh. MH/S-6/SC Case remanded.