2016 P Cr (PLP)

RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, J.

This revision petition is directed out of the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in which he dismissed the application of the petitioner and refused to declare to petitioner juvenile under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

2. Facts rising to the instant case are that the petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 922 registered on 22.08.2011 under sections 302, 427, 148 and 149, P.P.C. The petitioner filed an application before the learned trial Court seeking a favourable order and expecting to be declared juvenile and consequently separation of his trial and sending the same to the Court constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner, hence, this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the aforementioned criminal case for ulterior motives whereas the petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence; that the (petitioner is less than 18 years and Medical Standing Board was ordered to be constituted for determination of age of the accused and Medical Board unanimously opined on 01.12.2014 the age of the petitioner is about 20 years as the alleged occurrence took place on 22.08.2011 and in this way the petitioner was aged about 16-1/2 years. Further maintained that, though, birth certificate has been issued with late entry i.e. on 30.03.2014 but fully corroborates the opinion of the Medical Board/Ossification Test; further contends that the parents of the petitioner inadvertently declared the age of the petitioner in Matriculation Certificate as 05.10.1991 in order to admit the petitioner in School earlier, otherwise, date of birth of the petitioner is 18.06.1994 and not 05.10.1991. Finally, prayed for separating the case of the petitioner in order to transmit it to the Juvenile Court constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In order to declare an accused minor, procedure is laid down in Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which is reproduced as under:-- Section

7. Determination of age. "If a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purpose of this Ordinance, the Juvenile Court shall record a finding after such inquiry which shall include a medical report for determination of the age of the child".

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, requires this Court to give consideration to the following 3 points:- 1) Whether the date of birth mentioned in academic record is authentic; 2) Whether the birth certificate with late entry can be a reliable source to declare the petitioner as minor; and finally 3) Whether the opinion of medical board/ossification test is most reliable to declare the accused as minor.

7. I have given my anxious thoughts to the enquiry conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, under section 7 of Juvenile Justice System, 2000 and noticed that word shall have been used in connection with a medical report for determination of the age of the child. I have clarity in my mind that medical report has to be compulsory obtained and best medical test is ossification test and report of radiologist but it cannot be lightly ignored that ossification test though a better guide but not accurate estimate. There is possibility of margin of one year on either side, therefore, it is safely concluded that ossification test is only an estimated assessment and the medical board cannot determine the age of any accused with certainty. I am also in agreement with this wisdom that medical report is preferred over school leaving certificate as held in PLD 2007 Lahore

392. But in the instant case, it is not the matter of school leaving certificate, in fact, date of birth of the petitioner i.e. 05.10.1991 is shown in Matriculation Certificate and that is the primary certificate which travels up to highest education level and in this case the Matriculation examination Certificate/Result Card was issued to the petitioner on 04.08.2010. It is not an ordinary certificate, it is the date of birth of any student which starts from the nursery when a child is first time admitted in a school and finally in SSC Examination one has to give declaration towards age and there is very narrow scope for entry of wrong date of birth, at that time, a student is assisted by his teachers, school staff and parents, therefore, authenticity of date of birth cannot lightly be ignored. In the instant case, the accused appeared in Matriculation Examination in the year 2010, but, till now i.e. 2015 the petitioner had not challenged entries in Matriculation Certificate and failed to establish that he was below the age of 18 years at the time of alleged occurrence. So far as, birth certificate is concerned it has no sanctity at all, the birth of the accused is obviously in the year 1990 as per Matriculation Certificate but in order to get benefit the birth certificate is obtained somewhere in 2014. So far as medical certificate is concerned, as observed above, is always not exact, therefore, the trial Court was justified in incorporating medical certificate of the petitioner in the enquiry as envisaged in Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System, Ordinance, 2000, but rightly preferred academic certificate i.e. Matriculation Certificate. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Zakir v. The State and another (2004 SCMR 121), Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Suffyian and another (2009 SCMR 1073), Muhammad Hayat v. Muhammad Iqbal (2002 PCr.LJ 1237). Therefore, to my humble view the order passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned and the enquiry conducted by the said Court is as per requirement of section 7 of the aforementioned Ordinance.

8. For what has been discussed above, I do not find any legitimate exception to interfere in well reasoned order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, therefore, the instant revision petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.