2007 PLP 1309 (YLR)

Representation

• ----S. 324---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, (XXII of 2000), S.7---Appreciation of evidence---Petitioner was victim of injuries---Trial Magistrate after a full-dress trial convicted and sentenced accused persons for various offences--Appellate Court, on filing appeal against judgment of Trial Magistrate, remanded case for holding a fresh trial of accused persons while treating one of the accused as a "child" within the purview of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000---Said judgment of Appellate Court had been assailed by petitioner---Validity---Accused who was treated as a 'child' during the trial held by Magistrate, had never urged or claimed that he was `child' under the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and question of his juvenility had been agitated for the first time before the Appellate Court---Both parties produced evidence and various documents to prove their respective claims with regard to age of said child accused and Appellate Court relying upon the age of said accused mentioned in the slip Saza and statement of said accused recorded under S.342, Cr. P. C. had concluded that he was a `:child" at the time of alleged occurrence---Counsel for petitioner during the course of hearing of present revision, had produced a copy of extract from the Register of Birth maintained at the relevant Union Council to assert that said accused was more than eighteen years of age at the time of occurrence---Consensus had emerged between counsel for all parties, during the hearing of revision, to the effect that question regarding age of said accused at the time of occurrence needed a proper and thorough probe; all were agreed that matter - could be remanded to Appellate Court for attending to question of the accused's age in some detail with reference to relevant material available with the parties---High Court allowed revision petition and impugned order passed by Appellate Court was set aside and matter was remanded to Appellate. Court accordingly and appeal was to be re-decided by Appellate Court below after determining age of the said accused after appreciation of evidence on record and also getting him medically examined by the Board of Doctors.
• N. A. Butt for Petitioner.
• Rana Mohsan Qayyum for Respondents Nos.1 to 4.
• 3. It is evident from the record of this case that during the trial held by the learned Magistrate respondent No.3 had never urged or claimed that he was a 'child' for the purposes of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and the question of his juvenility had been agitated for the first time before the learned appellate Court.. While rendering the impugned judgment dated 9-9-2006 the learned Additional Sessions Judge had primarily relied upon the age of respondent No.3 mentioned in the Slip Saza and in the statement of respondent No.3 recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and had concluded that respondent No.3 was a 'child' at the time of the alleged occurrence and, thus, he could not have been tried by the learned Magistrate jointly with his co- I accused who were all adults and grown up. During the course of hearing of the present revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of an extract from the Register of Births maintained at the relevant Union Council to maintain that as a matter of fact respondent No.3 was more than eighteen years of age at the time of the occurrence in issue. As against that the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4 has placed reliance upon a School Leaving Certificate, the National Identity Card of a sister of respondent No.3, Slip Saza prepared by the local police, the statement of respondent No.3, recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and an Identification Certificate prepared by the Investigating Officer to contend that the Birth Certificate being relied upon by the petitioner is factually incorrect and that respondent No.3 was in fact less than eighteen years of age at the time of the occurrence. It has, however, been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4 that most of the abovementioned pieces of evidence being relied upon by the parties in respect of the age of respondent No.3 had never been produced or alluded to before the learned Additional Sessions-Judge, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad and that no inquiry under - section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 had been conducted either by the learned trial Court or by the .learned appellate Court. Thus, during the hearing of this revision petition a consensus has emerged between the learned counsel for all the parties that the question regarding the age of respondent No.3 at the time of the occurrence in issue needed a proper and thorough probe and that it was quite unsafe to leave the said question to be decided on c the basis of a mere visual assessment of respondent No.3's age by a police officer through the Slip Saza or by the learned trial Court at the time of recording of respondent No.3's statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. They have all, therefore, agreed that the matter may be remanded by this Court to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala District Faisalabad for attending to the question of respondent No.3's age in some detail and with reference of the relevant material available with the parties. In the peculiar circumstances of this case I have found such a consensus emerging between the learned counsel for the parties to be quite proper and in the fitness of things.

Judgment & Decree