Release of juvenile on probation

2019 PCrLJ 1176 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 364 & 164Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, (XXII of 2000), S. 11-CPossession of narcoticAppreciation of evidenceStatement of accused recorded on oathScopeRelease of juvenile on probationTwo packets of charas from each accused had been recovered, total weighing 05 Kilograms

Record showed that accused-appellant was a young girl, who had stated to be born on 04.02.2001 and presently she was hardly 19 years old

Accused/girl was arrested on 02.12.2016 as per judicial record

Record reflected that accused was 17 years old at the time of alleged occurrence, but the Trial Court had not considered her juvenility in terms of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and even not referred that aspect, which was the key factor while determining the quantum of punishment

Record transpired that the Trial Court had not made any effort to peruse the certificate of test/analysis of the laboratory of Drugs Control and Traditional Medicines dated 09.01.2017, which referred the person holding four packets nominated in the case as co-accused

No report showed that the sample had ever been taken from the charas recovered from the appellant and the same was sent for the purposes of chemical examination

Trial Court was bound to call the evidence, although the accused confessed her guilt by way of recording confessional statement

Court had to call the evidence to clear its conscience, so that the offence with which accused was charged could be thrashed out by way of evidence

Circumstances established that Trial Court while awarding the sentence to the accused-appellant, who was admittedly a juvenile and earned certain rights under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, had not given her due right

Trial Court had passed the conviction in a mechanical manner

Statement of accused-appellant regarding her date of birth as 04.02.2001 as well as admission on the part of Investigation Officer regarding the accused-appellant being juvenile at the time of arrest the special law came into play providing reduction of period of imprisonment in terms of S. 11(c) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Entire legal proposition revolved around the illegal oath conducted by the Trial Court while recording her confessional statement, who was juvenile at the time of occurrence

Even the Trial Court had not adopted due measures to conduct the trial in terms of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Said defects were neither curable nor fell within the ambit of irregularities, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide it afresh.

2016 MLD 395 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.426Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b) & 34Shari Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009, Para. 9(1)Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.13Qatl-i-amd, common intentionSuspension of sentenceRelease of juvenile on probationScope

Juvenile was accused of murdering his own father, but father (then injured) lodged an FIR against another person while not uttering a single word against the accused petitioner

Petitioner was not nominated by the deceased himself but Trial Court convicted the petitioner under S. 302(b), P.P.C., in disregard of the Sharia law as envisaged in Paragraph 9(1) of Shari Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009, application for suspension of sentence was allowed accordingly, and accused was released on bail.

2013 PCrLJ 182 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 11Release of juvenile on probationDiscretion of CourtScope

Reading of S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 provided that the Juvenile Court, after it had decided, that the accused juvenile had committed the offence, might, if it thought appropriate, pass order for releasing the juvenile on probation

Juvenile Court had discretion to decide the issue of release of juvenile on probation but by not exercising such discretion or in-action in exercising such discretion, the Juvenile Court would offend the dictates of law.

2013 PCrLJ 182 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S. 11Possession and trafficking of narcoticAppreciation of evidenceRelease of juvenile on probationDiscretion of courtScopeConscious knowledge of narcoticScope

Accused, who was a juvenile at the time of commission of alleged offence, was forced by the police to stop at a checkpoint and after being apprehended he himself disclosed presence of 13.2 kilograms of charas in petrol tank of his vehicle

Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Validity

All witnesses consistently deposed that accused was apprehended on the spot along with his vehicle, which was under his control as he was driving the same at the relevant time

No discrepancy in statement of any witness despite being subjected to searching cross-examination

Accused had conscious knowledge of narcotics concealed in the petrol tank of his vehicle because when he was signalled to stop he tried to escape and was subsequently forced to stop by blocking the road

After arrest, accused himself disclosed presence of narcotics in the vehicle

Accused was in exclusive control of the vehicle in which narcotics were kept in secret cavity, therefore, he would be deemed to be in the exclusive possession of the charas recovered from the vehicle

Nothing on record suggested that narcotic was planted on accused or that he was falsely charged

Samples taken from the recovered substance were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, which found them to contain charas

At time of framing of charge against accused he was aged about 17/18 years

Section 11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 provided discretion to court to decide the issue of release of juvenile on probation

Not exercising such discretion or in-action in exercising such discretion would offend the dictates of law

Trial Court, in the present case, had not exercised the discretion vested in it under S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which surely prejudiced the accused

Appeal was partially allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to accused was maintained, however, case was remanded back to Trial Court to decide the same after providing opportunity of hearing to accused and rendering reason, regarding exercise of discretion, as provided under S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to release the accused on probation and the terms thereof.

2013 PCrLJ 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 426Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S. 11Qatl-e-amd, common intentionSuspension of sentenceRelease of juvenile on probationScopeJuvenile accused possessing skills of a mature personEffectAccused allegedly killed the deceased by inflicting knife blows on his chestTrial Court convicted and sentenced accused to life imprisonment

Contention of accused was that he was juvenile at the time of the offence, therefore, Trial Court should have considered S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 whereby court had discretion to release an offender on probation for good conduct

Prosecution contended that accused was sentenced to life imprisonment only because he was a juvenile at the time of occurrence, otherwise it was a case of death sentence; that accused had already been dealt with leniently, and that only four months had passed since sentence of accused began, therefore, suspending his sentence would set a bad precedent

Validity

Accused was tried as a juvenile offender by the Trial Court and he was convicted to life imprisonment after a regular trial

Provisions of S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 were only meant to be considered/decided by the Juvenile Court

Role ascribed to accused was proved through confidence-inspiring evidence of prosecution witnesses

Role attributed to accused was also borne out from the post-mortem report of the deceased

Conduct of accused and method as well as mannerism of the commission of offence adopted by him indicated his evil and well-planned design

Conduct of accused indicated more towards the mature skill of an accused than of an innocent child

Petition for suspension of sentence was dismissed in circumstances.