Criminal Liability of Juvenile Offenders

The age of criminal responsibility is one of the main questions in prosecuting any criminal case. It represents a nation’s approach to maintaining a balance between justice and the developmental understanding of children. In Pakistan, Section 82 and 83 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) determine that children under the age of seven and twelve years are considered incapable of committing a crime [1]. While this legal framework appears to safeguard young children, it raises critical concerns when put aside international standards, particularly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which Pakistan ratified in 1990 [2]. This article has been divided into three parts to analyze the existing age of criminal responsibility in Pakistan and its implications. The first will explore the legal framework regarding the issue, the second will evaluate the misuse of the age of criminal responsibility, and the last and third will suggest possible reforms within the system. 

Part I: Legislation defining the age of criminal responsibility

The age of criminal responsibility has been defined in National legislation by the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, and the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. Internationally, it has been defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990. The following are the exact provisions of these legislations:

1. Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (PPC) [3]:

Section 82 states, “Nothing is an offence, which is done by a child under seven years of age” [3].

If the offender is under seven years old, they cannot be held responsible for any action, and the case is dismissed.

Section 83 states, “Nothing is an offense which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion” [4].

For offenders in this age group, the courts must determine whether the child has the sensibility and maturity to understand and evaluate their actions. If the court decides that the child does not satisfy the requirement of understanding the nature and consequences of their actions, they cannot be held responsible.

1. Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 (JJSA):

Section 2(b) states, “‘child’ means for the purposes of this Act a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years” [5].

2. Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 (JJSO):

Section 2(2) states, “‘child’ means a person who at the time of commission of an offence has not attained the age of eighteen years;” [6].

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990 (UNCRC):

Article 1 states, “For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, the majority is attained earlier” [7].

Where an offender has not attained the age of eighteen years, the focus shifts to their rehabilitation. Rehabilitation means to help someone to get back to their normal life, where the court focuses more on the improvement of the offender rather than punishment. In the landmark case of Shahbaz v. The State, the court reaffirmed that the focus should be on rehabilitation, not punishment even if the offender is found guilty [8].

The most obvious problem with these legislations is uncertainty. All of them read together and do not set a specific age of criminal responsibility. This becomes a bigger issue when courts are faced with cases of child offenders and must use these laws to determine convictions and sentences.

When legal frameworks like the PPC and JJSA are found in conflict, the courts will have to prioritize the JJSA and the CRC, focusing on the rights and the development of the child. For example, if an 11-year-old is accused of an offense, s.83 of the PPC may permit the prosecution if the offender is found to understand his actions and their consequences, but the JJSA ensures that the offender is tried in a juvenile court, with focus on the importance of rehabilitation. The issue then arises when courts use legislation like the PPC to convict seven-year-old children. This effectively contradicts international definitions of a ‘child’.

Part II: Misuse of the Age of Criminal Responsibility

In many cases, adults misuse the juvenile justice system portraying themselves as minors. This is done mainly for prevention from punishment like the death penalty and imprisonment for serious crimes. In these cases, the offender presents fake documents like birth certificate, school records, and medical sheets to prove themself innocent. These types of cases (especially those where there is no birth certificate at all) raise questions about the efficiency of the legal system and the validity of convictions and acquittals.

These types of cases left a question mark on the legal framework about the age of criminal responsibility. These are the most challenging cases where the court must determine the true age of an offender. In Pakistan, citizens do not have birth certificate which create more complications in the case. False claims of being a minor can lead to lengthy investigations and trials. We don’t even know how many adults avoid punishment for their previous cases by falsely presenting themselves as minors in court.

To prevent such misuse of the legal framework regarding the age of criminal responsibility, the courts order medical examinations e.g. bone age tests, and dental tests to verify the actual age of an offender. For Example, in the landmark case Rafiq v. the State, the accused (Rafiq) tried to portray himself as a minor in court but failed a medical examination ordered by the court that determined he was an adult. It was thus held that the offender must face criminal trial and punishment under the relevant provision of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for adults [9].

In another SC case, Muhammad Abbas v. the State, the offender claimed to be minor to avoid harsh punishment for a murder conviction. The Supreme Court ordered him to undergo a medical examination, which proved that he was an adult and had to face regular trial [10].

While the aforementioned are the conventional cases of adult offenders who portray themselves as a ‘child’, courts have also seen cases where an adult offender tries to protect himself by making his minor sibling confess the crime in court. The adult manipulates the justice system because the minor usually does not face any harsh punishment including the death penalty and imprisonment.

In the case of State v. Imran, an adult offender, accused of murder, convinced his brother (a minor) to confess to the crime of his brother. The main issue before the court was that the minor had voluntarily confessed to the murder in court. The minor stated his act was done in self-defense. The court conducted investigative sessions and found that the minor’s confession was not trustworthy. The court found the real culprit was Imran, the brother of the minor. The court rejected the confession of the minor and the adult who had tried to manipulate the justice system by using his siblings, faced a criminal trial. To prevent such misuse, the courts may rely on tactics like cross-examination, investigation, and evidence [11].

Part III: Suggestions for Reform

As a writer, I have a question for my readers: How would you feel if your loved one were killed by a minor or a child, and the court did not give any punishment to the offender simply because of their age? From my point of view, age should not be linked to crime. A criminal act committed by anyone should be punished. If a child commits a crime, the punishment should be directed at their parents due to their negligence, and the child should be taken into custody, away from the parents and a fine should be paid to the victim’s family.

Most importantly, the government should provide moral education to all parents. If parents notice any psychological issues in their child, they should contact a doctor. Due to their negligence and lack of supervision, children may end up engaging in criminal activities. The education system should also improve its standards, and the government should take responsibility for addressing the criminal activities committed by children.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the age of criminal responsibility is major for those who attained the age of eighteen years old. According to the existing legal framework, minors are not responsible for any crime. Crime is increasing day by day in our society, but the heart is wrenched out when most of the crime is done by minor offenders. Parents should take care of their children and focus on the growth and development of their children. The legal system should take steps to prevent crimes and positively lead society.

References:

[1] Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 82 and 83

[2] UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990

[3] Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 82

[4] Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 83

[5] Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, section 2(b)

[6] Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, section 2(2)

[7] The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990, Article 1

[8] Shahbaz v. The State (2018) SCMR 190 (SC)

[9] Rafiq v. the State (2001) SCMR 2016 (SC)

[10] Muhammad Abbas v. the State (2011) PLD 439 (SC)

[11] State v. Imran (2017) PLD 135 (LHC)