2002 PLP 637 (YLR)

1976 PCr.LJ 1325; Naseer Ahmad v . The State PLD 2000 S.C 813 and Hasan Lafar v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1939 ref. Mian Shahid Iqbal for Petitioner. Muhammad Jehangir Wahla, A.A.-G. for the State. Malik Muhammad Afzal for Respondent No. 2. [18-4-2002] In continuation of my order dated 8-4-2002 learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that according to the firth entry in the office of Local Union: Council, the date of birth of the petitioner 12-3-1985 and that according to the report of Medical Board dated 27-9-2001 the age of respondent No.2 was 22 years. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that occurrence had taken place on 21-3-1999 so at the time of occurrence the age of respondent No.2 shall be about 19 years five months and 24 days. Learned counsel submits that if one year is deducted from that then the age of petitioner is 18 years, 5 months and 24 days. He submits that benefit of the same should be given to respondent No.2 and the birth entry in the office of Local Council is always taken to be correct entry by the Courts. He has relied upon 1976 PCr.L.J 1325 and an unreported judgment passed in Criminal. Revision No.193 of 2002 titled as Syed Muhammad Baqir Shah etc. v The State by this Court. Learned A.A.-G submits that according to the police record the age of respondent No. 2 at the time of occurrence was 22 years. He submits that according to his opinion respondent No.2 was an adult and more than 18 years at the time of occurrence.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The occurrence in the instant case had taken place on 21-3-1999. According to the birth entry the date of birth of the respondent is 12-3-1985. The Learned trial Court had summoned the Secretary of Union Council, Mundal, Tehsil Kabeerwala, District Khanewal, namely Manzoor Hussain. I have gone through his statement. He was also cross-examined and he has admitted that there are 5 entries pertaining to year 1985 and the entry in question was on the last page of the register, that the register was not bounded one but in the shape of file in which the pages can be removed and added. He also admitted that after this page the entries of 1986 were started. During cross-examination conducted by the learned Defence Counsel he admitted that there was no birth entry of any person named Zafar son of Ramzan caste Noon resident of Mauza Kassi Jhandir in the year 1985. He also admitted that he knew the accused personally. He was the same person i.e. Mazhar Hussain son of Muhammad Ramzan caste Hiraaj resident of Kasai Jhandir and his birth entry, Exh.P.C/1 pertains to him. Medical Board was of the unanimous opinion that respondent No.2 was of 22 years of age on 27-9-2001. Occurrence had taken place on 21-3-1999 so his age at that time was 19 years, 5 months and 24 days. Even if the benefit of one year is given to the respondent then he is also more than 18 years i.e 18 years and 6 months. According to the police record the age of the respondent at the time of occurrence was 22 years. I have also gone through the unreported judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2002, by this Court produced by the learned counsel for the respondent after going through the same I found that it was a border line case. School Leaving Certificate was not accepted, even the report of Medical Board in which one of the accused was found to be 18/19 years of age and the other one was 17/18 years of age, was not taken into consideration, so the said case has no relevancy with the instant case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has also relied upon PLD 2000 S.C 813 and 2001 PCr.LJ 1939.

4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgments submitted by them, I am of the considered opinion, that if the stand-point taken by the learned counsel for the respondent is taken to be correct that the age of respondent is 18 years, 5 months and 24 days even then he even does not fall within the definition of child. So, considering all aspects of the case, I set aside the order dated 1-4-2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang and respondent No.2 is treated to be an adult and his trial will be held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and not as a juvenile Court. H.B.T./G-178/L Revision accepted.