Complaints of sections 302/380 Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), sections 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the conviction of the convicted AMD and theft were that the trial court had sentenced the accused to lesser punishment. Was understood. Evidence of the prosecution's witnesses was recorded by the trial court, which did not even mention that the evidence was filed by the Juvenile Court; the trial court did not ask any minority question while section 342 Recording a statement under the CCPC to indicate that the accused had been. Even as the trial court's minor verdict did not show that the accused was prosecuted under sections 3 and 4 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, the 2000 accused was examined by the medical board and the board approached his age of 17/18. The year, the complainant also submitted documents whose date was displayed in the NADRA record, the birth certificate of the accused as on 19 11 1985, birth certificate IN certificate issued by the District Municipal Corporation, School Lewa which contained The date of birth was reported on 19 11 1985 and the father of the accused Effect Trial Court had mistakenly considered the accused a minor, Therefore, the accused was sentenced and sentenced and the trial has been referred to the trial court for a new verdict. , While it is permissible to consider the accused as adult
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
