Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — ----Ss. 496-A & 328—Elopement and child abandonment—Conviction and sentence—Appellant Ibrar Ahmad was convicted under S. 496-A, PPC, for eloping with a married woman and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-—Appellant Mst. Sheema was convicted under S. 328, PPC, for alleged abandonment of her minor children and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-—Trial Court relied on the confessional statement of accused Ibrar Ahmad, which he later retracted, but the High Court held that a voluntary and legally recorded confession retains its evidentiary value even if retracted—Conviction under S. 496-A, PPC, upheld, but sentence reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment in light of appellant’s young age and lack of prior criminal record—Fine reduced to Rs. 10,000/- with ten days' simple imprisonment in default of payment. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — ----S. 164—Judicial confession—Retraction—Evidentiary value—Appellant Ibrar Ahmad’s confession recorded by a Judicial Magistrate was found to be voluntary and in compliance with procedural safeguards—High Court reaffirmed that a retracted confession, if made voluntarily and supported by corroborative evidence, can be the sole basis for conviction—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State (1995 SCMR 1615) and Miss Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan (2001 SCMR 988). (c) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — ----S. 328—Exposure and abandonment of child—Scope—Temporary absence of a mother does not constitute abandonment under S. 328, PPC—High Court held that for an offence under S. 328, PPC, prosecution must prove that the accused deliberately abandoned a child under twelve years of age in a situation of real danger—Appellant Mst. Sheema’s minor children remained in the care of their paternal family and were not exposed to any imminent harm—Conviction under S. 328, PPC, was set aside, and appellant was acquitted. (d) Administration of justice— ----Strict interpretation of penal provisions—Penal statutes must be construed strictly—High Court observed that broad or liberal interpretations of criminal statutes should be avoided to ensure fair administration of justice—Temporary neglect of children, without evidence of actual danger or intent to abandon, does not fulfill the requirements of S. 328, PPC—Appeal allowed to the extent of acquitting appellant Mst. Sheema. Disposition: Conviction of appellant Ibrar Ahmad under S. 496-A, PPC, maintained, but sentence reduced from seven years to three years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine reduction from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- or ten days' simple imprisonment in default. Conviction of appellant Mst. Sheema under S. 328, PPC, set aside—She was acquitted and ordered to be released. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ismail v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1615 • Miss Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan, 2001 SCMR 988

Summary: Bail denied---(a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 328, 328A---Cruelty to a child---Abandonment or neglect of a minor---Scope and applicability. Petitioner, father of the minor, was accused of using his child for transporting narcotics, resulting in the child’s recovery and subsequent custody under the Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act, 2004 (PDNCA 2004). FIR was registered under Ss. 328A PPC (Cruelty to a child) read with S. 38 PDNCA 2004 (permitting a child to enter places where narcotics are sold). The Court held that S. 328 PPC applies only to children under 12 years of age, while S. 328A PPC applies to children under 18 years of age and covers broader offenses, including assault, ill-treatment, and neglect. The Court distinguished between S. 328 PPC, which criminalizes intentional abandonment, and S. 328A PPC, which includes acts of omission or commission that cause physical or psychological harm to a child. ----Cited Cases: Raja Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi (PLD 2020 SC 146) (b) Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act, 2004 (PDNCA 2004): ----Ss. 3(1)(k), 24, 26, 38, 42---Protection of children---Use of children for illegal activities---Custody of minor---Scope. The minor was legally placed under the custody of the Child Protection Bureau under Ss. 24 & 26 PDNCA 2004. The Court emphasized that S. 38 PDNCA 2004 criminalizes taking or permitting a child to enter places where narcotics are sold, punishable with imprisonment up to five years. Additionally, S. 36 PDNCA 2004 penalizes employing a child for begging, and S. 3(1)(k) PDNCA 2004 defines a “destitute and neglected child”, including those used for illegal activities or abandoned by guardians. The Court noted that child exploitation, including using children in narcotics transportation, falls within the broader ambit of child neglect and cruelty under the PDNCA 2004. ----Cited Cases: Nehal v. The State (2020 SCMR 2053) (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898): ----S. 497(2)---Bail in non-prohibitory offenses---Scope---Exceptions. Petitioner argued that both offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C., making bail a matter of right. However, the Court held that bail cannot be granted in cases where an exception applies, particularly in crimes against vulnerable persons like children. The gravity of the offense, societal impact, and legislative intent behind child protection laws justified the denial of bail. ----Cited Cases: Abdul Rehman v. The State (2022 SCMR 526) Umer Khan v. The State (2022 SCMR 216) Haji Muhammad Nazir v. The State (2008 SCMR 807) Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum (2002 SCMR 442) (d) Islamic Perspective on Child Protection: ----Parental responsibility under Islamic law---Neglect and cruelty towards children---Moral and legal obligations. The Court observed that Islamic teachings emphasize love, compassion, and the protection of children. Quranic injunctions and Hadith reinforce the duty of parents to protect their children from harm, including exposure to illegal activities. Reference was made to Surah At-Tahrim (66:6), which commands believers to protect their families from harm. ----Disposition: Bail denied as no reasonable grounds existed under S. 497(2) Cr.P.C. for its concession. The Child Protection Court will conduct the trial, ensuring compliance with child protection laws.