2002 P Cr (PLP)

This revision petition is directed against the orders, dated 3‑5‑2001 and 13‑3‑2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali.

2. The brief facts are that the challan of the case F.I.R. No.212 registered on 2‑9‑1999 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Wan Bachran, Tehsil and District Mianwali was sent up to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali. On 3‑5‑2001, the learned Sessions Judge declared respondents Nos. 1 to 3. to be "Juvenile" after looking into their birth certificates. Subsequently, the present petitioner submitted an application to the effect that respondents Nos.1 to 3 by producing forged documents had shown themselves to be Juveniles and. the documents on the basis of which they were treated as Juveniles were the result of collusive connivance. It was also prayed in the application that 'a Medical Board for determination of age of all the three respondents be, constituted as held in the authority reported as 2001 PCr.LJ 1939, so as to determine as to what was the real age of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 at the time of occurrence. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali dismissed the said application of the petitioner .vide the impugned order, dated 13‑3‑2002 by declaring that interference with the order, dated 3‑5‑2001 will amount to review of order which the said Court could Aggrieved of the said order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

4. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on 2001 PCr.LJ 1939 (Lahore) wherein it was held that age of the accused can only be determined after obtaining the report from Medical Board. In the said authority, it was held that a Juvenile Court alone can decide whether an accused is a child or not on the basis of unimpeachable documentary evidence and after obtaining medical opinion. However, the facts on which the said authority is based were completely different. The ‑ age of the accused in the said case according to the Medical Board's Report was 23 years and there was a difference of five years in the age of the accused as mentioned in the birth certificate and as described in the Medical Board's Report. In this case, it appears from the impugned order, dated 13-3‑2002 that in this case the charge was framed on 13‑6‑2001 against all the three accused/ respondents and the statement of P. W.1 was recorded on 13‑6‑2001 while the statements of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were recorded on 14‑6‑2001. It also appears from the impugned order that on 13‑5‑2001 when the learned defence counsel had requested the learned Sessions Judge to declare the three accused/respondents as less than 18 years of age at the time commission of offence and as such to be the Juvenile offenders, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned prosecutor had not opposed the said request. It was in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and looking into the birth certificate submitted from both the sides that the learned Sessions Judge had declared the three accused/respondents as juvenile offenders. The law does not require that in every case a Medical Board be constituted so as to determine the age of an accused in order to find out as to whether he was below the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence. Section 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 provides that if a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purposes of the said 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. In the instant case, when the learned counsel for the respondents/accused had requested the learned Sessions Judge to declare the respondents/accused to be juveniles, neither the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner nor the learned prosecution had opposed the said request. It was held in 2002 SCMR 440 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) that where the complainant has not challenged the genuineness and validity of the documents (birth certificate, school leaving certificate and domicile certificate of the accused) before the trial Court, mere assertion of the complainant before the Supreme Court that the date of birth of the accused as mentioned in the certificates was not correct had no force. It was held that the view taken by the High Court that unless the said documents were held to be fraudulent or bogus, they were to be relied upon, was proper in circumstances. It was held in 2002 PCr.LJ 633 (Lahore) that provisions of section 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 are not to be invoked in each and every case mechanically, rather it is only where a question with respect to the age of an accused cannot be answered through any documentary evidence that, an inquiry is called for under the said law. It was further held in the said authority that the ossification test could only give a clue as to the age but could not be a conclusive proof and such exercise had to be resorted only when there was no other proof available like school leaving certificate or the birth certificate.

5. In the instant case, as mentioned above, no objection had been raised by the complainant when the respondents/accused had been declared to be juvenile offenders by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, a charge was framed and statements of a number of P.Ws. had been recorded. At this stage, issuing a direction to the learned Sessions Judge to decide afresh the question as to whether the respondents/accused are juvenile .offenders or not, would amount to reversing all the steps taken in connection with the trial. Even otherwise, the impugned order appears to be in order and is not illegal or perverse in any way. Under the circumstances, there is no justification for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. H. B.T./M‑1178/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition dismissed. ?