Juvenile Offender

Challan was available on record, wherein age of appellant was recorded as less than 18 years at the time of commission of crime

Similarly, the birth certificate of appellant (convict) was also available on record, which indicated the date of birth of the appellant as 01.05.2009

Admittedly, at the time of committing the crime, the age of the appellant was about 13-14 years and undoubtedly, he was a juvenile within the meaning of S.2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018

Besides, a special procedure for determining of age had been provided under the provision of S.8 of the Act, 2018

At the very outset, it was observed that whenever a question arose before a Court as to whether the accused was a juvenile offender and was subject to the jurisdiction of a Juvenile Court, the Court was required to hold an inquiry into the matter, but in the case in hand the Trial Court had failed to do so

Trial Court had failed to conduct any inquiry in order to determine the age of appellant through medical examination or to treat the appellant as juvenile as mentioned in the challan as juvenile

Similarly, the Court while granting custody of the appellant (convict) had also failed to discharge its functions in the light of S.8(2) of the ibid Act

Non-observance of mandatory provisions of law regarding determination of age of appellant had deprived him of the special rights and protection available to him as a child/juvenile

In such circumstances, the appeal was partly allowed by setting aside impugned judgment

Consequently, the case was remanded to the Trial Court for denovo trial of the appellant under the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018.

As per statement of Lady Constable, sealed samples of clothes and swabs of the victim were handed over to her by the Woman Medical Officer, which she handed over to Investigating Officer of the case on the same day who took the same into possession through recovery memo. but Woman Medical Officer in her statement nowhere stated that she ever handed over any clothes or swabs to Lady Constable

Thus, it appeared from the said deposition of Woman Medical Officer that she did not hand over any sealed parcel to Lady Constable

However, Investigating Officer of the case in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 14.01.2023 after medical examination of the victim, Lady Constable handed over to him two sealed parcels said to contain swabs and clothes of the victim which he took into possession vide recovery memo. and handed over the same to the Moharrar Malkhana on the same day i.e. 14.01.2023

If the said sealed parcels were taken into possession by Investigating Officer of the case on 14.01.2023 through recovery memo. whereas the appellant was arrested on the same day, then he was under obligation to transmit the said samples to the Office of Forensic Science Agency intact without any lapse of time on the same day i.e. 14.01.2023 but he after collecting the sealed parcels from Muharrar of the Malkhana on 16.01.2023, after two days of the occurrence, proceeded to the Office of Forensic Science Agency along with victim, her father as well as the accused/appellant for DNA analysis

After going through the said statements of the witnesses, it was established on record that the sealed parcels containing swabs and clothes of the victim were sent to the office of the Forensic Science Agency after arrest of the appellant, which fact created dent in the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Analysis of DNA Report showed that the samples were received in the office of Forensic Science Agency on 16.01.2023 with a delay of two days with no explanation, which made the positive report of the Forensic Science Agency cloudy and it lost its credence

Besides that, the safe custody of the samples from the date of drawing and securing the same till onward transmission and receipt by the office of Forensic Science Agency had also not been established by the prosecution, which adversely effected the case of the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In her deposition, victim reiterated her stance as narrated in the crime report and alleged that the appellant had committed rape with her

According to the contents of FIR, the complainant had not seen the appellant while committing rape with his daughter/victim

In his examination-in-chief, complainant endorsed the story narrated in the FIR that at about 03:00 p.m. when he and his wife were sitting in their house, victim on her return from school told them the story of rape committed by the appellant but in his cross-examination, complainant stated otherwise

Complainant stated that on her return, victim firstly told the incident to her mother

Complainant was not present when victim told the incident to her mother

Other witness of the ocular account as mentioned in the FIR was wife of the complainant and mother of the victim but she was given up by the prosecution, therefore, it was found that the testimony of complainant was not direct and had no evidentiary value thus was thrown out of consideration

In the instant case, two Women Medical Officers medically examined the victim

From the perusal of evidence of both the Woman Medical Officers, it seemed that severe dents had been put in the case of prosecution

Said Woman Medical Officers had categorically deposed that after examining the victim girl, they were of the opinion that the victim was not subjected to sexual penetration

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record transpired that the occurrence allegedly took place on 14.01.2023 at 03:00p.m. whereas the report was lodged by the complainant on the same day at 08:00p.m., while the statement of the victim under S.164, Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate on 17.01.2023 i.e. after three days of the occurrence

Perusal of statement of victim showed that she in her cross-examination admitted that she deposed as per instructions of police

Thus, statement of victim recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., could not be relied upon as being trustworthy and worth reliance

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

According to FIR, petitioner was found committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant, while grazing goats in the fields

Investigating Officer had not investigated the circumstances proceeding the incident which were necessary to establish mens rea

Investigating Officer had also not obtained the reports under Ss.5(1)(b) and 7(2) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, although they were mandatory

Given that the petitioner's age was closer to the lower end of the 10 to 14 age bracket, more convincing evidence was required to establish his maturity level, even at the investigation stage, because younger children were generally presumed to lack the maturity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions thoroughly

If a child was closer to 14 years old, the presumption might lean more towards the likelihood of sufficient maturity, thus requiring comparatively less rigorous evidence to establish that maturity

For all said reasons, further inquiry was needed to determine the petitioner's guilt

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Held, that at the heart of our criminal justice system, treatment of child offenders should be guided by reformative approach

Young individuals, often led astray by difficult circumstances, deserve a chance to find their way back to normal life and become valuable members of society

By focusing on reformation rather than punishment, we address root causes of their behaviour

Society must give juvenile offenders the tools they need to succeed and prevent them from returning to a life of crime

Each child reformed is a success for community, showing that with right support, everyone can change for the better

Effective implementation of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 requires a multi-faceted approach involving all stakeholders

By adhering to the provision of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, it can be ensured that criminal justice system is fair, humane, and geared towards rehabilitation of juvenile offenders

Detenu and his siblings, having suffered neglect and destitution, were sent to embrace of Child Protection Bureau

Custody of minor would be regulated by Child Protection Court to undertake all necessary measures to ensure that such vulnerable children were safeguarded from future involvement in any unwanted activities

High Court expected from State to fulfill its obligation to nurture and shield such ill-fated minors

High Court directed investigating agency to dismantle gangs exploiting minors for their nefarious designs, ensuring that such vulnerable youths would no longer be ensnared in criminal activities

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Accused contended that he was minor at the time of commission of offence and was not tried under Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018

Validity

Age of accused was recorded 18/19 years in the Card of arrest

Investigating officer failed to conduct any inquiry to determine age of accused on the basis of birth certificate, education certificate or any other document

Trial Court granting custody of accused also failed to discharge its function in the light of S. 8(2) of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 when accused at the time of arrest was 18/19 years old, while arrest took place one year before his arrest

Presumption was that accused was under 18 years of age at the time of alleged offence and was a juvenile

Non-observance of mandatory provision of law regarding determination of his age deprived accused of special rights and protection available to him as a child/juvenile

Question of determination of age was vital before putting accused to trial

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused without dilating upon merits and remanded the matter to Child Protection Court

High Court directed Child Protection Court to first determine age of accused and if accused was proved to be minor/juvenile at the time of alleged offence, then to conduct fresh trial under the relevant law

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Accused was a juvenile offender at the time of commission of offence, who was convicted and sentenced for committing Qatl-i-amd of a young boy

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Validity

Accused was charged by complainant in a promptly lodged report within forty-five minutes, which ruled out possibility of deliberations or consultations as occurrence took place at 1100 hours while report was lodged by him at 1145 hours

Complainant appeared as prosecution witness and gave details of occurrence by supporting contents of FIR

Prosecution succeeded in establishing guilt of accused

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence passed against accused, as the same was based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and there was nothing to indicate that it was either based on any error of law or the same was different to well-established principles of judicial approach or the same could in any manner be characterized as unjustified

Quantum of sentence under S.16 of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, when accused was juvenile at the time of commission of offence, death sentence could not be awarded

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, unnatural offences and attempt to commit offences

Bail, refusal of

Juvenile offender

Delay in lodging of FIR

Accused had sought bail on the grounds of delay in lodging of FIR and being a juvenile offender

Allegation against accused was that he, after attempting to commit sodomy with the deceased brutally murdered him

Prosecution witnesses in their statements under Ss. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. had implicated the accused in the commission of offence

Delay having been plausibly explained was not helpful to the accused

Delay in lodging of FIR in every case could not be fatal for the prosecution case and was not sufficient to claim bail

Accused could not be given benefit under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, unless he was declared juvenile by the court of competent jurisdiction, which was lacking in the present case

Trial against the accused was about to conclude

Bail was refused to accused, in circumstances.

Attempt to Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-Khaffifa, Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw, Ghayr-Jaifah Damiyah, other hurts, rioting armed with deadly weapons

Bail, grant of

Juvenile offender

Delay in trial

Determining age of accused

Effect

Only ground raised by accused was that he was a juvenile and there was an unexplained delay in conclusion of his trial

Plea raised by injured witness was that the delay was caused on the part of accused in having himself declared as juvenile offender and if he had not made that application, delay could not have been caused in conclusion of trail

Validity

Making of application for being declared juvenile could not be termed a factor that caused delay in conclusion of trial rendering accused disentitled to bail

Such act or omission was to be pregnant with mala fide on the part of accused/juvenile offender and such factor was not available against accused

Delay in conclusion of trial was neither caused nor occasioned by an act or omission of accused or any person acting on his behalf

Accused was entitled to concession of bail on account of delay in conclusion of trial

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

High Court observed that if offence was committed at the verge of juvenility, it had far reaching consequences upon future of an offender

Every sentence had a purpose though the way in which it was to be accomplished could vary or differ

Case of a repeater or habitual offender where probability of reformation was little and case of first time novice offender, where he/she had regret wrongdoing, such two cases could not be measured on same yardsticks and the latter case deserved a lenient view

High Court reduced sentence of accused to one already undergone as he was first offender and of the age less than eighteen years at the time of occurrence

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Police prosecution witnesses through their straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence had connected the accused with the crime

Police Officials having no ill-will against the accused were competent witnesses and their evidence could not be discarded only due to their being connected with the Police department-Non-production of independent witnesses from the locality was immaterial on account of the present trend of the society of avoiding poking their nose in such like affairs

Accused had been arrested red handed while preparing a bomb and a large quantity of explosive substance was recovered from their possession, which was to be used in bomb blasts for which they were making preparations

Case of accused fell within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court

Age of an accused had no relevance to the question of such jurisdiction

Under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, court would acquire jurisdiction if the offence was triable by it, whereas under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, court would acquire jurisdiction if offenders were juvenile, irrespective of the nature of the offence committed by them

Acquittal of four co-accused in the case was of no help to accused, as the nature of evidence in respect of acquitted co-accused was quite different than the nature of evidence against the present accused

Required sanction for prosecution, if not received within 30 days of submission of challan in the court, the same would be deemed to have been accorded within the meaning of S.19(8B) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Trial Court, thus, could proceed with the trial of the case

Accused did not deserve any leniency

Conviction of accused was consequently maintained

Sentence of two accused was also maintained, but the sentence of third accused who was minor at the time of occurrence was reduced from 14 years' R.I. to 8 years' R.I., as he might have been involved under the influence of his elder brother

Appeals were disposed of accordingly.

By and large a child is considered to be deserving of special treatment because of his innocence and lack of proper understanding of the nature or consequences of his conduct

Young person who has already lost his childhood virtue, innocence and incorruptibility and who understands the nature or the normal consequences of his conduct, no matter what is his age, may cease to qualify for such special handling as a child.

Accused a lad of 16 years-No presumption that he could never participate in major crime-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Accused a lad of 16 years-No presumption that he could never participate in major crime-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Casual offenders, other than those convicted of heinous crime normally to be released on probation of good conduct or after admonition-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 562-High Court Rules and Orders (Lahore) Vol. III, Ch. 22-D, para. 2.