Juvenile Justice System

2024 PLD 843 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

PreambleConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 35United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), Art. 3Juvenile justice systemChild justiceTherapeutic jurisprudence

Purpose and objective of the juvenile justice system explained.

2012 SCMR 1400 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Accused committing a serious offencePlea of juvenility raised by accusedDetermination of age of the accusedSchool records/certificates of the accused casting reasonable doubt over plea of juvenilityDuty of courtPreference of medical evidence over school/academic records in such circumstances

Scope.

2012 SCMR 1400 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Purpose and scopeMethod and mannerism of the commission of the offenceEffectPlea of juvenilityDetermination of age of the accusedDocumentary evidence not reliable to support plea of juvenilityMedical evidence indicating accused to be a majorReliance on medical evidence

Scope.

2012 SCMR 1400 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Plea of juvenilityDetermination of age of the accusedMedical evidenceCorroborative value

Scope.

2012 SCMR 1400 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

RapePlea of juvenility by accusedDetermination of age of the accusedContradictions and doubts in school records of the accused casting confusion over correct date of birth of the accusedPreference of medical evidence over school/academic records in such circumstancesScope

Accused had allegedly committed rape with the complainant's daughter (victim), who was minor at the time of the incident

Courts below found that no clear and conclusive view was possible in view of the available evidence with regard to the age of the accused, therefore, the view which was in favour of the accused was taken and he was held to be a juvenile and referred to the juvenile court for trial

Contentions of the complainant (appellant) were that medical jurist, who had conducted an ossification test of the accused, opined that the accused was 19 years of age, and that the radiologist had opined that on the basis of the x-ray films, age of the accused was above 18 years

Contentions of the accused were that medical opinion could only be sought when matriculation or equivalent certificate or date of birth certificate from the school was not available and since, in the present case, the admission certificate of the accused was available, same should be allowed to prevail upon the medical evidence

Validity

Where the school record was itself not free from ambiguity and could not conclusively prove the minority of the accused, medical opinion could not be allowed to be overlooked or treated to be of no consequence

Where the Trial Court itself could not arrive at a conclusive finding regarding the age of the accused, the opinion of the medical experts based on x-ray and ossification test would have to be given preference over the shaky evidence based on school records and plea of circumstantial inference

Opinions of the medical jurist and radiologist, in circumstances, were significant and could not be overlooked

Accused had failed to prove that he was a minor at the time of the commission of the offence and hence could not be granted benefit of being a juvenile

Appeal was allowed, judgments and orders of courts below were set aside and accused was directed to be sent for trial before the court of competent jurisdiction and not the Juvenile court.