Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),365,377

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: XXVII,7

Law: Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018

Section: XXII,8

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 340(1)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 9,10A

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 365 & 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018), S.8---Qatl-i-amd, abduction for ransom, sodomy and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Age, determination of--Principle---Accused was convicted for the offences charged and was sentenced to death---Plea raised by accused was that he was juvenile at the time of commission of offense---Plea raised by accused was that Trial Court appointed defence counsel at State expense who did not cross-examine prosecution witnesses and no inquiry regarding age of accused was conducted before trial---Validity---When controversy regarding age of person cannot be settled through documentary evidence and medical due to different opinions, preference is always given to medical opinion--High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and remanded the matter to Trial Court to give opportunity to accused to engage a counsel of his choice and in case accused was unable to engage any counsel then Trial Court would appoint any senior counsel at State expenses---High Court directed to resummon prosecution witnesses and the counsel so appointed be given a fair chance to cross-examine them---High Court directed Trial Court to hold inquiry under section 8 of Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, and if it was established that accused at the time of occurrence was a juvenile, then trial of accused would be conducted under Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018---Appeal was allowed accordingly.2012 SCMR 1400 and Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State and another PLD 2009 SC 777 rel.(b) Counsel and client-------Pauper counsel---Responsibility---Counsel who accepts a dock-brief and for a fee paid by the state undertakes to defend a prisoner without trying to know anything about the case offends against the tradition of his profession---If such counsel is not ready for the defense, it is his duty to ask for time and if necessary for adjournment---Unseeming hurry makes defense in important cases of crime impossible and is likely to affect result of the trial.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 340 (1)---Right to be…