Determination of age of accused

Court should feel free to requisition the original record, summon and examine the authors/custodians of record to determine its genuineness

Court could summon persons, if need be, who on account of some special knowledge could depose about the age of accused person and could take further steps in reaching a just conclusion

Issue about determination of age of accused was of vital significance

Court was not to decide the issue in a summary or slipshod manner.

Plea of accused was that he, as per his birth certificate and educational certificates, was a juvenile and Trial Court despite verification from concerned department had relied solely on the report of Medical Board for determination of his age

Validity

Birth certificate and educational certificates were available before Trial Court but it had considered the said documents to be insufficient for reaching at just and fair conclusion

When Medical Board was established and constituted as third tier then its utilization, for the purpose of determination of age, could not be termed objectionable or strange

Accused, according to his father, was born in hospital but no certificate of hospital or discharge card was placed on record

Criminal revision application was dismissed.

Accused had produced result card issued by Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and Registration Form issued by National Database and Registration Authority, which documents came within the purview of reliable documents and date of birth of accused was registered much prior to the occurrence

Such entries of age could not be said to be fabricated and procured just to avail any sort of benefit

Determination of age through ossification test was necessary when no reliable documentary evidence was available on record about the age of accused

Ossification test/Radiologist report even if obtained, could not be given preference over the undisputed reliable documents, said report could not be considered as conclusive proof about the age of the accused

Petition, being devoid of any force, was dismissed.

Whenever a question arose as to whether the accused was a Juvenile offender and was subject to the jurisdiction of a Juvenile Court, the court was required to hold an inquiry into the matter to seek the truth

Court was not only to take into consideration the documents produced by the parties, but where necessary, record statements of the witnesses and requisition medical report, including clinical and radiological examination of the accused.

Application filed by accused to declare him juvenile and separation of his case from other accused person, was dismissed by the Trial Couct

Validity

Accused claimed that he was less than 18 years at time of occurrence

Medical Board, duly constituted, unanimously opined that accused was aged about 16-1/2 years of age at the time of occurrence

Birth Certificate, issued with late entry, had fully corroborated the opinion of Medical Board/ossification test

Medical test/ossification test, though a better guide, but not accurate estimate

Possibility of margin of one year on either side existed

Ossification test was only an estimated assessment; and Medical Board could not determine the age of accused with certainty

Medical report, could be preferred over school leaving certificate, but in the present case, it was not the matter of school leaving certificate, as date of birth of accused was shown in matriculation certificate and that was the primary certificate which would travel upto highest education level

Very narrow scope was available for entry of wrong date of birth at that time

Accused had failed to establish that he was below the age of 18 years at the time of alleged occurrence

Order passed by the Trial Court was well reasoned, and the enquiry conducted by the Trial Court was as per requirement of S.7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Order passed by the Trial Court; old not be interfered with, in circumstances.

Document showed that birth entry was recorded in the official record and old registration number had also been mentioned in Birth Certificate meaning thereby that entry of birth of accused was made in the official record in 1999

Documents, in circumstances were genuine.

Whenever a question of age of an accused person was raised, he must be subjected to medical test unless strong reason existed or could be offered for not doing so.

Inquiry could be held in respect of age of accused during trial, if and whenever it appeared to be necessary to the court

Court had the discretion to see whether there was need to hold an inquiry for determination of age of accused person; if the court was not satisfied, it had jurisdiction to hold such inquiry by summoning original record.

Inquiry to be held by court for determining age of accused was not a mandatory requirement for the reasons that documents, Form-B and Birth Certificate of accused had come on record from official custody and were prepared under National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000

Such documents enjoyed presumption of truth unless rebutted through very strong and cogent evidence.

Court relying upon copies of Secondary School Certificate and National Identity Card of accused without verifying their authority

Legality

Doubt regarding claim of juvenility

Whether benefit of such doubt was to be extended to accused

Plea of petitioner that at the time of determining age of accused High Court relied upon copies of his Secondary School Certificate and National Identity Card without verifying as to whether said documents were genuine or not, that the accused had never claimed before the Trial Court at any stage that he was a juvenile, even during the time of recording of his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. and memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court, that High Court erred in law by holding that in case of doubt regarding age of an accused, the benefit of such doubt was to be extended to the accused person, whereas the law as declared by Supreme Court in various judgments was that in case of doubt regarding age the onus of proof was on the accused to establish his claim of juvenility through positive evidence, and if there was any doubt left in the matter then the accused could not take advantage of such doubt

Validity

Pleas raised by petitioner required consideration, therefore, Supreme Court allowed petition for leave to appeal and granted leave for the purpose.

Trial Court in view of available record, passed order that accused who appeared to be juvenile, his case would be proceeded under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Validity

Entry of date of birth of accused, was supported by extract from the register pertaining to school record of accused and "Form Bay" from NADRA

Both said documents which pertained to issue of age of accused, having come from official custody, and being much prior in time than the registration of the criminal case against accused; no finger could be pointed out to term the same as fabricated or procured one in order to avail the benefits of juvenility

No reason was found to doubt said documents

Ossification test of an accused about determination of his age, would be necessary and relevant only when no authentic and reliable documentary evidence was available about his age

In presence of accurate documentary evidence regarding the age of accused, there would be no necessity to refer him for his ossification test etc.

Order of the Trial Court to proceed with the case of accused under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity

Same was upheld and criminal revision was dismissed.

Accused claimed that impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and his case be sent to the court of competent jurisdiction for trial de novo

Accused had never taken plea of his tender age, at the very initial stage of the case before the Investigating Officer, nor he had urged such ground in his bail application

Accused was supposed to raise such plea before the Trial Court

Had the accused taken such plea, Trial Court would have proceeded under S.7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, to ascertain his actual age

At the time of framing of charge, age of accused had been recorded as about 21 years, whereas at the time of occurrence his age came up about 18 years

Accused had annexed a birth certificate issued by the Head Teacher, who was incompetent to issue said certificate as said certificate could be issued by School Headmaster, or it was sole function of Local Council/Union Council, where the entries of births and deaths of people of concerned area were recorded

Objection of accused with regard to his tender age, was turned down, in circumstances.

Trial Court considered birth certificate and school leaving certificate of accused and also Form-B issued by National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA)

Conflict existed between date of birth given on school leaving certificate and date of birth given on birth certificate of accused

Trial Court preferred birth certificate of accused and consequently declared hint as a juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence

Complainant (petitioner) contended that due to the conflict between elate of birth, preference must be given to ossification test of accused, which showed that accused was 19/20 years at the time of occurrence

Validity

Ossification test was an opinion of the Radiologist on the basis of bone ,examination and it was just an opinion and Wright vary front 6 months to 1 year either side, therefore, keeping in view the consistent record, specially date of birth given in the birth certificate as well as in NADRA records, the accused was found less than 17 years of age at the time of alleged offence

Trial Court had rightly held that accused was a juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence

Impugned order of Trial Court was lawful and justified

Revision petition was dismissed tt circumstances.

Ossification test was an opinion of the Radiologist on the basis of bone examination and it was just an opinion and might vary from 6 months to 1 year either side.

Where there was conflicting documentary evidence, then opinion of expert was necessary for determining age of accused.