December 5, 2002	Thursday	Ramazan 29,1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

PESHAWAR, Dec 4: The Federal Shariat Court on Tuesday remanded back the case of a juvenile offender, convicted of molesting a minor boy, for retrial.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Fazal Ilahi Khan ordered that the trial of the appellant, Shareef Noor, should be conducted by a juvenile court. The court ordered that the appellant’s age should be ascertained by a radiologist and it should be considered whether he was mature enough at the time of the commission of the offence.

The court allowed bail to the appellant on the condition of furnishing two sureties of Rs10,000 each.

The chief justice expressed reservations about the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, observing that it would result in enhancing involvement of children in crimes, including narcotics pushing.

Justice Ilahi observed: “Keeping in view the provisions and leniency extended to juvenile offenders, in future elders of a family will use their minor children for killing their opponents.”

The court recalled that the leniency extended to women while hearing their bail applications had resulted in increase in their involvement in drug trafficking.

Shareef Noor was convicted by the additional district and sessions judge, Kohat, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs50,000. He was accused of molesting a boy of four in the jurisdiction of Jhangalkhel police station, Kohat, on March 22, 1997.

The counsel for the appellant argued that the accused was a minor at the time of the commission of the offence. He argued that under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance his trial should have been conducted by the district and sessions judge, Kohat, as he had the powers of juvenile court.

The counsel argued that according to the trial court the age of the appellant was 15 years at the time of the crime.

The court observed that in the present age, children attained maturity much earlier. The court inquired from the counsel whether the medical examination of the appellant had been conducted or if his age was ascertained by a radiologist. The counsel replied that according to the school certificate, his age was 12 years.