Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1 of 2012 ' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. Shahrukh petitioner has sought suspension of his sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan vide judgment dated 28-5-2012 and release on bail in case F.I.R. No,338 of 2011, dated 3-8-2011 registered at Police Station Kot Chhutta, District Dera Ghazi Khan in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P . P. C .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was tried and convicted by the learned Juvenile Court vide judgment dated 28-5-2012. The learned trial Court has failed to perform its primary duty while passing the impugned judgment as under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 it is the duty of the Juvenile Court to protect child involved in criminal litigation and passed the judgment for rehabilitation of the accused-child. It is mandatory upon the Juvenile Court to consider provisions of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 while passing judgment of conviction. The learned Juvenile Court has the discretion to direct that a child offender be released on probation for good conduct. Admittedly the petitioner is a Juvenile offender and the longer he remained in jail his future would jeopardize and he will not become useful member of the society. Even otherwise it was a sudden affair as allegedly the petitioner has gave chhurri blows to the deceased at the spur of the moment because there arose a dispute of place of pushcart between the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner has given blows to the deceased in self-defence. There is no other case registered against the petitioner so he is not hardened, dangerous desperate criminal. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 2012 PCr.LJ 142, 2006 PCr.LJ 1562 and 2007 PCr.LJ 1577.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contends that the learned trial Court after assessing and evaluating the prosecution evidence has convicted and sentenced the petitioner in this case in a regular trial. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment only because he was found to be juvenile at the time of occurrence, otherwise it is a case of death sentence. The petitioner has already been dealt by the learned trial Court leniently. The petitioner was convicted on 28-5-2012 and now just four months have passed since his conviction so if the sentence is suspended it will be a bad precedent. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner himself admitted during trial that he had inflicted blows on the person of the deceased and it has been noticed by the learned trial court that there are as many as five injuries on the chest of the deceased. The intention of the accused could be gathered from locale of injuries. The petitioner has acted in this case as a desperate manner so he deserved no leniency from this Court in the matter of suspension of his sentence. Reliance is placed on 2011 SCM R 131 and 2011 PCr.LJ 2013.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, the learned counsel for the complainant and also after going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by this Court that the petitioner was tried as a juvenile offender by the learned trial Court and he was convicted to life imprisonment after a regular trial. It has also been noticed that major role has been ascribed to the petitioner which is proved through confidence-inspiring evidence of P.Ws. And the role attributed to the petitioner is also borne out from the Post-mortem Examination Report of the deceased. The conduct of the petitioner and the method as well as mannerism of the commission of the offence adopted by him indicates him to be an evil and a well-planned designer, which also indicates more towards the mature skill of an accused than of an innocent child. The statutory protection of the legislation on Juvenile Justice was meant for a minor who was an innocent law breaker and was not an accused having a mature mind who used the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him.
5. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been given the benefit of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is concerned, suffice it to observe that the petitioner has been convicted for life imprisonment under section 302, P.P.C.
And not in offences of petty nature. If such like offenders are given benefit of section 11 of ibid Ordinance it would open the Pandora box. For ready reference section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is reproduced as under:- "11. Release on probation.---Where on conclusion of an inquiry or trial, the Juvenile Court finds that a child has committed an offence, then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, the Juvenile Court may, if it thinks fit--
(a) direct the child offender to be released on probation for good conduct and place such child under the care of guardian or any suitable person executing a bond with or without surety as the Court may require, for the good behaviour and well-being of the child for any period not exceeding the period of imprisonment awarded to such child".
Even otherwise the provisions of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 only meant for learned trial Court/Juvenile Court to decide. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
6. For what has been discussed above this petition has got no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.