MASOOD SARWAR vs SADAQAT HUSSAIN etc.
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning the determination of an accused's age at the time of the commission of a crime. The core legal question is whether the respondent was a minor at the time of the offense or if he manipulated his date of birth to claim minority status to avoid the death penalty. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine this factual determination. The judgment highlights the principle that if there is doubt regarding the age of an accused, the benefit of that doubt is not automatically extended to the accused, as established in Sohail Iqbal vs. The State (1993 SCMR 2377). Furthermore, the Court reiterated the procedural requirement under the High Court Rules and Orders (Volume III), Chapter 22-A, paragraph 8, which mandates that criminal courts must explicitly enter the ages of convicts in the body of their judgments to ensure the court is properly seized of the issue when determining sentences for juvenile or adolescent offenders.
- Does an accused automatically receive the benefit of the doubt regarding their age if there is uncertainty about whether they were a minor at the time of the crime?
- What is the procedural obligation of criminal courts regarding the recording of a convict's age in their judgments?
- Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Chapter 22-A, Paragraph 8, High Court Rules and Orders (Volume III)
ORDER
1. Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.-- 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 VS. THE STATE" (1993 SCM R 2377). Relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "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 12.08.1986 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.0 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 us. The State" (2005 SCMR 1758).