PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

ABDUL HAFEEZ vs STATE S — 2026 PCRLJ 698 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2026 PCRLJ 698 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2026
Reporter
PCRLJ
Parties
ABDUL HAFEEZ vs STATE S
Provisions referred to
S. 377---J; S. 2; S. 8; Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018); Juvenile Justice System Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

ABDUL HAFEEZ VS STATE S. 377---Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018), Ss. 2(b) & 8---Unnatural offence---Juvenile offender---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged that he forcibly committed unnatural offence with the minor son of complainant---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.

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English