MASOOD SARWAR vs SADAQAT HUSSAIN and others
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, challenging the determination of the respondent's age at the time of the commission of the crime. The core legal question presented was whether the convict was a minor at the time of the offense, or if he had manipulated his date of birth to claim minority status to avoid the death penalty. The Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine this issue of age determination. In its preliminary observations, the Court emphasized that if there is a doubt regarding the age of an accused, the benefit of that doubt should not automatically be extended to the accused, citing established precedent. The Court referenced instructions from the High Court Rules and Orders, which mandate that criminal courts must explicitly enter the ages of convicts in their judgments to ensure the court is properly seized of the issue when determining sentences for juvenile or adolescent offenders. The Court reaffirmed that judicial scrutiny of age claims is essential to prevent the misuse of juvenile sentencing protections.
- Is the benefit of doubt regarding an accused's age automatically extended to the accused to avoid the death penalty?
- Are criminal courts required to explicitly record the age of a convict in their judgments?
- Does the manipulation of date of birth records by an accused to claim minority status preclude the benefit of juvenile sentencing protections?
- Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- After hearing the learned counsel, leave to appeal is granted only to examine whether at the time of commission of crime, convict/respondent was a minor or he manipulated his date of birth to show himself minor, subsequently to take the benefit of the law, according to which the minor would not be awarded extreme penalty of death. This fact is also to be considered that if there is a doubt in respect of age of an accused, benefit would not be extended to him as it has been held in Sohail Iqbal v. The State 1993 SCM R 2377. Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbel ow :-- "(4) From the record it appears that the date of birth of the appellant was traced to be 9-10-1964 which makes his age at the time of occurrence which took place on 12-8-1986 about 21 years 8 months. The trial Court had recorded the age of the appellant by appearance in December, 1987 when the statement under section 340, Cr.P.C. As 16/17 years while in November, 1987 when his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded as 16 years. The High Court Rules and Orders (Volume III) in Chapter 22-A, paragraph 8 lays down the following instructions of the High Court to the Criminal Courts:- ".... The Judges are also pleased to direct that all Criminal Courts should in future enter the ages of the, convicts in the body of their judgments, with a view to being directly seized with the question of age when deciding the sentence to be imposed on a juvenile or adolescent."
2. ' The above judgment has also been relied in the case of Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others v. The State 2005 SCMR 1758.
3. Leavc granted.
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD RAHEEL alias SHAFIQUE Versus State 2015 PLD 145
- SHER BAHADUR vs FAYYAZ and others 2014 PSC (Crl.) 731, 2014 PLD Supreme Court 791
- Sher Bahadur vs Fayyaz, etc. 2014 PSC (Crl.) 731
- BABAR ALI vs THE STATE and 2 other 2007 PLD Lahore 650
- BABAR ALI vs STATE and 2 others PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 386