Sections 426 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Section 11 murder, juvenile release on juvenile detention suspension investigation The impact suspect allegedly killed the deceased with a knife on his chest. The trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. The defendant's sentence was that he was underage at the time of the crime, therefore, the trial court should have considered section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance. 2000, under which the court had the discretion to release an offender in a conduct case, the prosecutor argued that the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment because he was less convicted at the time of the incident, otherwise he was sentenced to death. Was a matter of It was alleged that only four months had elapsed since the accused's conviction had begun, so, suspending his sentence would set a bad precedent; the accused was prosecuted as a criminal at trial. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. After the regular trial, the imprisonment was to consider / decide only the provisions of Section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, which was attributed to the role of the Juvenile Court as the accused, which was admitted by the prosecution's witnesses. The evidence was allegedly attributed to the accused. The defendant's post-mortem report and the commission of the crime adopted by him and his bad and planned design refer to the suspect's particular skill as an innocent child rather than the defendant's conduct. The sentence was dismissed under the circumstances of the suspension request
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
