Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 376(3) & S. 83----Juvenile accused---Rape---Assessment of criminal capacity---Presumption of doli incapax---Standard of maturity under S.83 PPC---Held, prosecution must establish that child offender understood both the nature and penal consequences of the act---No effort made by trial court or prosecution to assess petitioner's maturity or rebut statutory presumption---Absence of psychological evaluation renders conviction unsafe---Petitioner, aged 13 at time of occurrence, not shown to possess criminal maturity to justify conviction under S.376 PPC---Conviction set aside. The Supreme Court held that Section 83 PPC introduces a rebuttable presumption that a child between ten and fourteen years lacks criminal capacity unless it is proven otherwise. In the instant case, no meaningful inquiry was conducted into the petitioner’s cognitive understanding of the nature or legal consequences of the act. The trial proceeded in a mechanical manner without any psychological assessment, in disregard of Pakistan’s obligations under the UNCRC and the protections envisaged under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Court emphasized that in the absence of any rebuttal to the statutory presumption under Section 83 PPC, the conviction was unsustainable. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Arts. 25(2), 35----Protection of children---Juvenile justice---State's obligation to protect minors---Interpretation in light of UNCRC and domestic legislation---Held, JJSA, 2018 is not decorative but a binding statutory commitment to treat juveniles with care, dignity, and developmental sensitivity---Children are not little adults---Trial court failed to uphold the reformative purpose of juvenile justice laws. The Court reaffirmed the constitutional duty of the State under Articles 25(2) and 35 to protect children and to enact special provisions for their welfare. Referring to the UNCRC and General Comment No. 24 (2019), the Court stressed that cognitive and emotional immaturity in juveniles necessitates a distinct justice approach. The Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 was recognized as a substantive law that mandates child-sensitive treatment of juvenile offenders, which was absent in the petitioner’s trial. (c) Criminal trial----Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in ocular account---Unexplained delay in medical examination---Failure to collect forensic evidence---Held, serious doubts arose due to inconsistent statements of eyewitnesses, contradictions with victim’s testimony, and absence of medical or forensic corroboration---Prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court observed glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. Witnesses gave contradictory accounts regarding pursuit of the accused, and the victim’s own testimony negated the claim that she raised cries heard by the eyewitnesses. No independent witness from the locality was produced. The medical examination, conducted 30 hours after the incident, did not reveal injuries usually consistent with minor sexual assault. No semen was found, no potency test conducted, and no circumstantial evidence was recovered. These deficiencies created reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal. (d) Criminal jurisprudence----Benefit of doubt---Presumption of innocence---Held, conviction cannot be sustained solely on heinousness of the charge---When doubts arise from prosecution’s own evidence, accused must be acquitted---Courts below erred by failing to properly evaluate material contradictions. The Court reiterated the foundational principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It held that despite the gravity of the offence, the contradictions in evidence, failure to collect supporting material, and lack of legal safeguards for the juvenile rendered the conviction legally unsound. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused. (e) Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018)----Ss. 15 & Preamble----Trial of juvenile offenders---Requirement of reformative approach---Improper conduct of trial---Held, child was handcuffed, age not recorded, no psychological inquiry conducted---Such procedural lapses violate the spirit of JJSA and international law---Directions issued for circulation of judgment among all Juvenile Courts. The Supreme Court condemned the handcuffing of the minor and failure to record his age in the charge-sheet, terming it a violation of statutory and constitutional safeguards. It emphasized that all criminal forums must treat age documentation as mandatory. The judgment was directed to be circulated to all Juvenile Courts for strict guidance and compliance. Disposition: Petition converted to appeal and allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted of charge and ordered to be released forthwith. Cited Law & Instruments: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 83 & 376(3) Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, Ss. 15 & Preamble Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 25(2), 35 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) General Comment No. 24 (2019) by UN Committee on the Rights of the Child