Summary: ''The sexual offence mentioned in Section 375 PPC cannot be equated with the consensual consummation of marriage with a legally wedded girl, who has attained puberty, though she has not attained the minimum age provided under the Act of 1929." --- The Court, in effect, held that: 1. The criminal law related to statutory rape under section 375 Pakistan Penal Code has no affect on the under age marriages; ---- 2. Different under age marriages' laws do not affect the validity of marriages; --- 3. The purpose of marriage restraint laws is to only criminalize the conduct of marrying an underage girl and not to affect the legality of the marriages; --- 4. An under age girl can make a statement in court under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure; --- 5. Only an accused has a statutory right to cross examine a statement under 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. --- the judgment discussed the consequences of marrying an underage girl. It emphasized that the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, provided punishment for such marriages but did not declare them void. The judge rejected the petitioner's argument that respondent No. 5 committed rape, stating that consensual consummation of marriage with a girl who has attained puberty does not equate to rape. The judgment also addressed the petitioner's contention that Mst. Yasmin was not competent to have her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judge ruled that age alone did not determine competence, referring to the Qanun-e-Shahadat. The judgment emphasized the "rationality test" to determine a child's ability to understand and answer questions.

Summary: Background: A writ petition was filed seeking the recovery of a minor girl who was allegedly abducted and later claimed to have entered into a marriage contract with an adult man. The petitioner alleged that the minor was unlawfully taken and sought her custody. The court placed the minor in Dar-ul-Aman for protection while determining the validity of the marriage and the minor’s legal capacity to consent. The court also examined statutory and constitutional provisions addressing child welfare, marriage, and sexual abuse. -----Issues: 1- Can a minor under 18 years of age legally consent to a marriage? -----2- Does puberty alone establish the legal competence of a minor to enter into a marriage contract under Pakistani law? -----3- Is a marriage contract involving a minor valid when it entails conduct defined as rape or sexual abuse under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)? -----4- Who should have custody of the minor pending the resolution of the matter? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court declared that a minor under the age of 18 years cannot validly consent to marriage. A purported marriage involving a minor is void ab initio as it violates statutory laws prohibiting child marriages and sexual exploitation. --Statutory Provisions: The court emphasized that under the Majority Act, 1875, a person below 18 years is a minor. Sections 375 and 377A PPC criminalize any sexual activity involving a minor, even with purported consent. A marriage contract involving a minor thus has an unlawful object and is void. --Islamic Personal Law: The court clarified that Muslim Personal Law is subject to statutory enactments, which take precedence when regulating marriage and child protection. --UNCRC Compliance: The court referenced Pakistan’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which protects children under 18 years from exploitation and mandates their welfare as a primary consideration. --Public Policy: Allowing such marriages would undermine laws ensuring the welfare, safety, and education of minors, particularly females, and is against constitutional protections for children. The minor was ordered to be released into the custody of her mother. The respondent claiming to be her husband was directed to pay litigation costs. The court also recommended legislative clarity to address inconsistencies in child marriage laws. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2018 Islamabad 385 (Determination of age through NADRA records without requiring medical examination) PLD 2020 Islamabad 28 (Directions to curb child marriages) PLD 1970 SC 323 (Mst. Bakhshi v. Bashir Ahmed) (Marriage of a girl under 16 attracts criminal liability but does not automatically invalidate the marriage contract; distinguished due to subsequent legal developments) 2000 PCr.LJ 226 (Tariq Mahmood v. The State) (Minors are not competent to contract marriage) 2012 PCr.LJ 11 (Muhammad Aslam v. The State) (Marriage requires "consenting adults") 2016 PCr.LJ Note 61 (A minor cannot give consent) 2002 SCMR 1694 (Societe Generale De Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan) (International obligations in statutory interpretation) 2021 SCMR 1401 (Yar Muhammad Khan v. Sajjad Abbas) (Minors lack capacity to contract) PLD 1994 SC 693 (Shehla Zia v. WAPDA) (Right to life includes a meaningful existence) PLD 2016 SC 17 (Malik Mumtaz Qadri v. State) (Judicial limits in interpreting Shari’ah law)

Summary: Case involving the marriage of a minor under the age of 18 --- A child is defined as a person who has not reached the age of 18 and must be under the care of a parent, guardian, or other caregiver. --- A female child below the age of 18 cannot be considered legally competent to give consent to a marriage contract solely based on physical signs of puberty. --- Sections 375 and 377A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) are considered mandatory provisions, and any marriage contract involving a child under the age of 18 is void from the beginning. --- Consent for sexual conduct cannot be given by a child under the age of 18 or by a parent or guardian on behalf of the child. Sexual conduct with a child is considered a crime. --- Various laws within Pakistan establish the age of 18 as the threshold for various rights and responsibilities, such as obtaining a National Identity Card, voting, and obtaining a driver's license. --- Protecting the rights and well-being of children is a paramount duty of society, and the legal system must ensure their protection. -- The court orders the release of a minor from a shelter into the custody of her mother, with responsibilities outlined for the mother and her husband under the Islamabad Capital Territory Child Protection Act, 2018. --- The court directs the relevant authorities to take note of inconsistencies and potential conflicts in existing laws regarding the marriage age and child protection.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs,criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Accused wascharged for sexually abusing the daughter of complainant and taking snaps and recordingvideos---In the present case, statements of prosecution witnesses established the fact that theaccused had been sexually assaulting the minor girls of the Mohallah---All the witnesses hadbrought on record that soon after getting information, the accused was arrested and afterwatching the snaps and videos they were shocked that the accused was sexually assaultingthe minor girls---Confession of accused was recorded before Judicial Magistrate---Courtstatements of witnesses were fully in line with the confessional statements under S.164,Cr.P.C. as well as their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under S.161,Cr.P.C.---Defence had failed to point out any minor contradiction or dishonest improvementin all the statements of witnesses---Even otherwise, a minor child could be defamed forwhole life, no father or elder brother would involve an innocent person in the false case---Nosuggestion was put forth to the effect that the complainant or the victim had any animosity orill will against the accused---Defence had failed to bring on record any ill-will or ulteriormotives on the part of witnesses for false implication of the accused---Record showed thatthough number of victims were named, who were sexually assaulted, but the prosecution hadfailed to produce all the victims---One major victim was not produced by the prosecution,though her Court statement was available on record---Victims had also kept mum till thearrest of the accused, thus, in such circumstances, awarding of capital punishment to theaccused was unwarranted---Sentence of death of accused was, therefore, converted intoimprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification insentence, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs,criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Statements ofvictims---Scope---Accused was charged for sexually abusing the daughter of complainant and taking snaps and recording videos---Prosecution case had been strengthened by thestatements of two minor victims---Statements of both the said victims were fullycorroborating each other on all material counts---Despite lengthy cross-examination, thedefence had failed to give dent or damage to their testimonies---Undisputedly, the victims ofthe offence were minors less than the age of 10-years and a school going girls, who did notcarry any ill will, grudge or malice against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case---Evidence of both the victims had been fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well asthe other circumstantial evidence including the expert report, who carried out the analysis ofphotos and videos---Testimony of the victim could not be impeached or discredited thoughsubjected to test of cross-examination by the defence---Record showed that though numberof victims were named, who were sexually assaulted, but the prosecution had failed toproduce all the victims---One major victim was not produced by the prosecution though herCourt statement was also available on record---Victims had also kept mum till the arrest ofthe accused---Awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted, incircumstances---Sentence of death of accused was, therefore, converted into imprisonmentfor life---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence, in circumstances.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 376---Rape---Sole statement of victim---Scope---In case of sodomy or zina the solitarystatement of victim would be sufficient to convict the accused if it was confidence-inspiring.Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs,criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Medicalevidence---Scope---Accused was charged for sexually abusing the daughter of complainantand taking snaps and recording videos---Record showed that the case of prosecution had alsobeen strengthened from the medical evidence produced through Lady Police Surgeon---Perusal of Medico-Legal Certificates had established the fact that the hymens of victimswere not intact and that the sexual act was performed with them---Investigating Officer alsoproduced the accused before Medical Officer, who after examination issued Medico-LegalCertificate, perusal of which also established the fact that the accused was potent and wasable to perform the act of sexual intercourse---Record showed that though number of victimswere named, who were sexually assaulted, but the prosecution had failed to produce all thevictims---A major victim was not produced by the prosecution, though her Court statementwas available on record---Victims had also kept mum till the arrest of the accused---Awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted, in circumstances---Sentence of death was therefore, converted into imprisonment for life, in circumstances---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs, criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Recovery ofincriminating material---Scope---Accused was charged for sexually abusing the daughter ofcomplainant and taking snaps and recording videos---Case of prosecution had also gotstrength from the recoveries of smart phone, computer C.P.U. and USB---Raid wasconducted in the house of accused and during the course thereof smart phone was recoveredfrom personal possession of accused, while the search of his house was resulted intorecovery of computer C.P.U. and USB---Said articles were also produced in the Trial Courtand on the request of prosecution the memory card already recovered from the possession ofaccused as well as his smart phone, USB and computer were played, perusal of whichtranspired that the accused had taken hundreds of porn snaps and a number of videos whereaccused had been sexually abusing the minors by unnatural offence, fingering in virginal partand other such obnoxious acts---Prosecution in order to establish the porn snaps and videosrecorded in the above articles sent the same for analysis and accordingly a witness producedthe Digital Forensic Examination Report---Said report further strengthened the case ofprosecution that the pornography was genuine, as the same was forensically examined, noframe insertion, editing, forgery, deletion was identified---Not only the memory cardcontained porn snaps and videos of minor girls but the computer, USB and mobile phone ofthe accused also contained such abusive porn snaps and videos of minor girls---Recordshowed that though number of victims were named, who were sexually assaulted, but theprosecution had failed to produce all the victims---One major victim was not produced by theprosecution, though her Court statement was available on record---Victims had kept mum tillthe arrest of the accused---Awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted,in circumstances---Sentence of death was therefore, converted into imprisonment for life, incircumstances---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 376 & 375---Kidnapping,abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, rape---Bail, refusal of---Principle of consistency---Applicability---Scope---Allegation against accused wasthat he along with another abducted the daughter of complainant on gun point andboth accused persons committed rape with her---Accused was named in the FIR withspecific role---Allegation against accused was prima facie supported by the medicalevidence, according to which the hymen of the alleged victim was old torn---Medicalexamination of alleged victim was conducted after 10 days of abduction---ForensicScience Agency had reported that no semen was detected on the swabs taken fromthe vaginal area of the victim and after going through the said report medical officerhad opined that no fresh intercourse was taken place but the alleged victim wasabducted on 21-11-2018 and she was released from the custody of the accused on 26-11-2018, whereas her medical examination was conducted on 01-12-2018, therefore,non-presence of semen on the swabs taken from the vagina of alleged victim wasquite natural---Penetration was sufficient to constitute the offence of rape---Penetration was established from the medico-legal report of the alleged victim---Accused was found guilty during the course of investigation and accused was unableto establish any mala fide on the part of the prosecution for his false involvement inthe case---Co-accused had been granted post arrest bail by High Court but noallegation of rape was levelled against him and as such the case of the accused wasdistinguishable from the case of the co-accused---Accused, in circumstances, couldnot claim the relief of bail on the principle of consistency---Petition of accused forgrant of bail was dismissed.

Summary: Conviction maintained ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) – S. 376(iii) Rape – Minor victim – Ocular and medical evidence – Conviction – Child victim, aged four years, was found competent to testify after rationality test – Her testimony was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by complainant and other eye-witness – Medical examination revealed swelling, ruptured hymen, and active bleeding – Held, slightest degree of penetration is sufficient to constitute rape under S. 376, PPC – Ejaculation or complete penetration is not required – Credible statement of victim, supported by medical evidence, sufficient to maintain conviction. Cited cases: Habibullah v. The State 2011 SCMR 1665; Shakeel v. The State PLD 2010 SC 47; Maqbool Hussain v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 1841; Muhammad Yasin v. The State 2024 SCMR 128 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – FIR – Delay in reporting Promptness – FIR registered within two hours and forty minutes of occurrence – Place of occurrence was at considerable distance from police station – Held, FIR was promptly lodged, negating possibility of consultation or fabrication – Identity of accused established beyond doubt – Conviction upheld. Cited cases: Istikhar alias Iftikhar v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 1795; Muhammad Hanif v. The State 2023 SCMR 2016 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Arts. 3 & 17 Competency of child witness – Voir dire conducted by Trial Court – Victim found rational and competent – Her testimony was straightforward and identified the accused – Held, competent child witness can be sole basis of conviction if statement is trustworthy and corroborated – Conviction justified. Cited cases: Raja Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi PLD 2020 SC 146; The State v. Muhammad Saleem 2025 LHC 1099 (d) Medical Jurisprudence – Nature of rape – Penetration Definition of rape – Held, under settled jurisprudence and amended S. 375, PPC, even slightest penetration is sufficient – No requirement of ejaculation or injury – Medical findings of swelling, hymen rupture, and bleeding consistent with penetrative abuse – Forensic opinion confirmed that rape is a legal conclusion, not a medical diagnosis. Cited references: Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence (24th Ed.); Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence; Zahoor v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 992; Kamran v. The State PLD 2022 Lahore 645; Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey AIR 1992 SC 204 (e) DNA evidence – Forensic support – Legal sufficiency Negative DNA report – Medical expert noted possible use of condom or non-ejaculation – Held, absence of DNA does not negate rape – DNA is corroborative, not conclusive – Where ocular and medical evidence is reliable, conviction can be maintained even without positive forensic match. Cited case: Atta ul Mustafa v. The State 2023 SCMR 1698; Abdul Ghani v. The State 2022 SCMR 544 (f) Juvenile offender – Capacity to commit offence Juvenility – Accused claimed to be incapable due to age – Medical opinion did not confirm incapacity – No legal presumption under Pakistani law that a person below a certain age cannot commit rape – Held, capability depends on mental maturity and facts – Conviction not barred by age alone. Cited cases: Satto v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 (2) SCC 628; Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence (8th Ed.) (g) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 4, 9, 14 & 25 – Anti-Rape (Trial and Investigation) Act, 2021 – S. 26 – Penal Code – S. 376-A Disclosure of victim’s identity – Violation of statutory and constitutional safeguards – Identity of minor victim disclosed in FIR, pleadings, and judgment – Held, such disclosure contravenes S. 26 of Anti-Rape Act and S. 376-A, PPC – Also infringes fundamental rights under Arts. 4, 9, 14 & 25 of the Constitution – Directions issued for compliance in all future matters. Cited cases: Muhammad Aamar v. The State 2022 LHC 8114; Nipun Saxena v. Union of India 2019 (2) SCC 703 Disposition: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under S. 376(iii), PPC, maintained.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art. 184(3) & Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 375 & 376 ---Fundamental rights violation---Gang-rape of a minor girl, failure of police to register F.I.R., and subsequent attempts by the complainant to reach an out-of-court settlement under coercion---Maintainability---Supreme Court took suo motu notice under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution on account of the violation of the victim's fundamental rights and the broader societal impact of such crimes. The Court emphasized that rape cases, being crimes against society at large, are non-compoundable, and any out-of-court settlement is a nullity in the eyes of the law. The State has an obligation to prosecute such cases to protect societal interests and the rights of victims. ---Cited Cases: Muhammad Shahid Sahil v. The State (PLD 2010 FSC 215), Amanullah v. The State (PLD 2009 SC 542). (b) Administration of Justice---State's Role in Prosecution of Rape Cases ---Non-compoundable nature of rape cases---Court held that the State must actively prosecute rape cases even if the victim withdraws or enters into a coerced compromise. The prosecution and judiciary should ensure a fair trial process, protecting victims and witnesses from intimidation and coercion. Judicial oversight is essential in cases where societal norms and pressures may impede justice. ---Held: Any compromise or out-of-court settlement in such cases is inadmissible, and the prosecution must proceed irrespective of the victim’s withdrawal. (c) DNA Testing in Rape Cases ---Mandatory preservation and testing---Supreme Court underscored the importance of DNA testing as the most reliable scientific evidence in rape cases. DNA profiling, though not conclusive on its own, serves as critical corroborative evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court directed that the administration and preservation of DNA evidence in rape cases be made mandatory. ---Cited Cases: Muhammad Azhar v. The State (PLD 2005 Lahore 589), Abdul Khaliq v. The State (PLD 2011 SC 554). (d) Rights of Victims in Rape Cases---Recording of Evidence ---In-camera trials and protection measures---Supreme Court recommended several victim-centric measures, including recording statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C., preferably by female magistrates, conducting in-camera trials by female judges, and allowing for screens or video conferencing to protect victims from the accused. These measures aim to minimize secondary trauma and ensure the integrity of the victim's testimony. ---Cited Cases: Sakshi v. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 3566), State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (AIR 1996 SC 1393). (e) Role of Police and NGOs in Rape Cases ---Guidelines for victim support---Supreme Court directed that every police station should maintain a list of registered NGOs to provide counseling and legal aid to rape victims. Immediate involvement of such organizations can help ensure timely support and reduce victim intimidation. Police officers should be adequately trained to handle rape cases sensitively. ---Reference: Delhi Commission of Women v. Delhi Police (Writ Petition No. 696 of 2008). (f) Final Disposition ---Supreme Court disposed of the petition by approving the recommendations made by the petitioners, including the mandatory use of DNA tests, preservation of evidence, victim protection measures, and guidelines for police and prosecution. The Court emphasized the need for legislative reform to institutionalize these recommendations, ensuring better protection of victims' rights and robust prosecution of rape cases.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Pre-Arrest Bail – Principles Governing Grant of Bail Before Arrest ---- Pre-arrest bail as an extraordinary remedy—Pre-arrest bail is not a right but an exceptional relief, granted only in cases where the accused demonstrates mala fide intent, ulterior motives, or clear abuse of process behind the registration of the FIR—Bald allegations, minor inconsistencies, or reliance on inconclusive evidence are insufficient grounds to warrant pre-arrest bail—When serious allegations such as rape are involved, the court must exercise caution and leave matters requiring detailed scrutiny to the trial stage. ------ (b) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) – Sections 375 & 496-B – Rape vs. Fornication – Determination of Consent ---- Rape vs. Fornication – Legal Distinction—Rape, defined under Section 375 PPC, involves non-consensual sexual acts characterized by coercion, force, intimidation, or exploitation—Fornication, under Section 496-B PPC, refers to consensual sexual relations between unmarried individuals—Determination of consent is pivotal in distinguishing between the two offences and requires a thorough examination of evidence, including witness testimonies, medical findings, forensic reports, and communication records—The burden of proving the absence of consent lies initially with the prosecution and subsequently shifts to the accused to establish plausible consent. ------ (c) Consent – Legal Interpretation and Evidentiary Requirements ---- Elements of Valid Consent in Sexual Offences—Consent must be an unequivocal, voluntary agreement given freely and without coercion, intimidation, or deception—Silence, passivity, or lack of physical resistance cannot be presumed as consent—Under Section 375 PPC, consent obtained through fear, fraud, intoxication, or manipulation is invalid—The presence of threats or blackmail, including threats to release objectionable material, nullifies any perceived consent. ------ (d) Evidence – Role of Medical and Forensic Evidence in Rape Cases ---- Medical and Forensic Evidence as Corroborative Tools—Medical examination reports and forensic evidence serve as critical tools in corroborating or negating allegations of rape—The absence of physical injuries does not automatically imply consent, particularly in cases involving intimidation or coercion—Circumstantial evidence, including communication records, CCTV footage, and witness testimonies, must be collectively evaluated to determine the presence or absence of consent. ------ (e) Judicial Role – Trial Court’s Function in Evaluating Evidence ---- Scope of Bail Proceedings vs. Trial Proceedings—Allegations of rape and questions of consent involve complex factual assessments that cannot be conclusively determined at the pre-arrest bail stage—Such matters must be left to the trial court, which is the proper forum for evaluating evidence comprehensively—Discrepancies in witness statements or investigative findings require detailed scrutiny during trial proceedings. ------ (f) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Article 14 – Right to Human Dignity ---- Protection of Human Dignity in Rape Cases—Article 14 guarantees the inviolability of human dignity and personal privacy—Victims of sexual violence are entitled to protection under the law, irrespective of their social, moral, or sexual character—Victim-blaming or reliance on the victim’s character as a defence in rape cases is legally irrelevant and ethically indefensible. ------ Cited Case Law: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others (AIR 1996 SC 1393) State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (AIR 2000 SC 1470) Atif Zareef and others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 550) Shakeel and others v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 47) Muhammad Imran v. The State and another (Criminal Petition No. 725/2023, decided on 26.06.2024) ------ Disposition: The pre-arrest bail application was dismissed. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, supported by medical and forensic evidence, and cannot be conclusively evaluated at the bail stage. The petitioner failed to demonstrate mala fide intent or ulterior motives behind the registration of the FIR. The trial court is the appropriate forum to determine questions of consent and evaluate evidence comprehensively.

Summary: Background: Imran Haider, the petitioner, filed a criminal revision against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot, District Jhang, dated November 30, 2023. The order declared Muhammad Hussain (respondent No. 2) as a juvenile in the case involving the abduction and murder of the petitioner’s 14-year-old son, Hassan Raza. Hassan was abducted by Muhammad Hussain and his co-accused, Asim Ali, and was later found dead, with evidence of sodomy. Initially charged under section 363 PPC (kidnapping), additional charges of sections 302, 375-A, and 34 PPC were added during the investigation. The trial court declared Muhammad Hussain a juvenile based on his Form-B issued by NADRA, showing his date of birth as May 20, 2006, making him 17 years old at the time of the crime. ----Issues: 1) Whether the trial court erred in declaring Muhammad Hussain a juvenile based on the Form-B issued by NADRA. ---2) Whether an ossification test should have been ordered due to conflicting documents regarding the accused’s age. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Holding: The Lahore High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to declare Muhammad Hussain a juvenile, dismissing the criminal revision. ----Reasoning: No Need for Ossification Test: The court held that under Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, the age of the accused should be determined based on documentary evidence (such as birth certificates and Form-B). Since there were valid public documents (Form-B issued by NADRA and a birth certificate), there was no need for an ossification test. The school leaving certificate presented by the petitioner was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies in the name and educational details. ----Preference to Public Documents: The court found that the NADRA-issued Form-B and the birth certificate, being official records, should take precedence over private documents like school leaving certificates. The court emphasized that the principle of law requires reliance on documentary evidence first, and only in its absence should medical reports be sought. ----Juvenility at Time of Offense: The court concluded that Muhammad Hussain was indeed a juvenile at the time of the offense based on his official date of birth (May 20, 2006), as stated in the NADRA documents. ----Outcome: The criminal revision was dismissed, and the trial court’s decision to declare Muhammad Hussain a juvenile was affirmed. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Anwar vs. Muhammad Sufiyan and Another (2009 SCMR 1073) Oam Parkash vs. The State of Rajistan and Another (2012 SCMR 1400) Sultan Ahmad vs. ASJ-I, Mianwali, and Two Others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 758) Saleem Khan vs. The State and Others (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 356) Manzoor Hussain vs. The State and 8 Others (2013 P.Cr.L.J. 18) Nasreen Akhtar vs. Mian Abbas, SHO, and 7 Others (2016 P.Cr.L.J. 578) Zahida Parveen Alias Gooma and Another vs. The State and Others (2019 P.Cr.L.J. 1491) Adil Khan vs. The State and Another (2020 P.Cr.L.J. 729) Muhammad Zubair vs. The State (2010 SCMR 182) Ijaz Hussain vs. The State (2002 SCMR 1455) Umar Hayat vs. Jahangir (2002 SCMR 629) Sohail Iqbal vs. The State (1993 SCMR 2377)