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

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

ABDUL HAFEEZ VS STATE. S. 377---Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018), Ss. 2(b) & 8---Unnatural offence---Juvenile offender---Appreciation of evidence---Determination of age of juvenile accused---Special procedure for determination of age---Scope. The appellant was charged that he forcibly committed unnatural offence with the minor son of the complainant. The prosecution case was that the appellant had committed the offence punishable under S.377, P.P.C. The record revealed that the challan was available on record wherein the age of the appellant was recorded as less than 18 years at the time of commission of the crime. Similarly, the birth certificate of the 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 the age of an accused had been provided under the provisions of S.8 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. 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 for determination of age. In the case in hand, the Trial Court had failed to conduct any inquiry in order to determine the age of the appellant through medical examination or otherwise, despite the fact that the appellant was mentioned as juvenile in the challan. The Trial Court had failed to treat the appellant as a juvenile offender and had not extended the special rights, protections and safeguards available to him under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. Similarly, the Court while granting custody of the appellant (convict) had also failed to discharge its functions in accordance with the provisions of S.8(2) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. Non-observance of mandatory provisions of law regarding determination of age of the appellant had deprived him of the special rights and protection available to him as a child/juvenile under the law. In such circumstances, the appeal was partly allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Trial Court for de novo trial of the appellant strictly under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018.

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

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ