Instant criminal revision assails order dated 22.5.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Attock, whereby application of the petitioner praying him to be declared as juvenile as on 7.1.2004 was dismissed and the SHO was directed to submit .challan before the Court of competent jurisdiction, as regards co-accused of the petitioner who was found to be a juvenile, on day of occurrence.
2. Petitioner alongwith his co-accused Khyber Zaman, faces trial of case registered vide FIR No, 1 dated 7.1.2004 under Section 302/34 PPC with Police Station Sadar Hassan Abdal, District Attock.
Challan against them was submitted for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, during which petitioner moved an application for determination of age of the accused persons. It was claimed that Khyber Zaman accused was born on 8.8.1989, whereas Faisal Khan petitioner was born on 4.10.1991 and thus both of them were claimed to be juvenile at the time of occurrence, which took place on 7.1.2004 being less then 18 years of age. According to the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khyber Zaman accused appeared to be elder than Faisal Khan petitioner. It was observed that birth entry of Khyber Zaman was recorded in the birth register of Union Council Bhalar Jovi on 21.1.1989 showing his birth on 1.1.1989. As against this, birth entry of Faisal Khan petitioner was recorded on 26.2.2004 showing his birth on 4.10.1991. This entry was made after the occurrence, on the basis of a School Leaving Certificate which also was found to be doubtful and accordingly Faisal Khan petitioner was referred to Medical Superintendent DHQ Hospital, Attock for his ossification test by a Medical Board.
3. Learned Sessions Judge after receipt of report from the Medical Board and after hearing the parties held that at the time of the alleged occurrence i,e, 7.1.2004, the petitioner was of the age of more than 18 years, whereas his co-accused Khyber Zaman was found to be juvenile and accordingly SHO Police Station Sadar Hassan Abdal was -directed to submit a separate challan against Khyber Zaman. This was done vide order dated 22.5.2004. Petitioner aggrieved of the decision by the learned Sessions Judge regarding his age vide order dated 22.5.2004 has filed instant criminal revision petition, wherein in response to notice respondents have appeared through their respective counsel.
4. Heard. Record perused. Petitioner's School Leaving Certificate has tampering in the column of date of birth regarding which a criminal case has also been registered vide FIR No, 97 dated 7.5.2004 under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC with Police Station Sadar Hassan Abdal, District Attock and thus this document even in view of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Naseer Ahmad Vs. State (PLJ 2001 S.C. 337) does not furnish a lawful basis for declaring the petitioner as juvenile. Similarly, his birth entry, which was recorded in the register of office of Union Council Bhalar Jovi, Tehsil Hassan Abdal, was entered on 26.2.2004 and being after the date of occurrence, is not worth reliance. The only course left for determination of age of the petitioner was the one adopted by the learned Sessions Judge. The Medical Board constituted under the orders of the learned trial judge has opined that the petitioner was of 20 years of age on 17.5.2004 which means that he, on the date of occurrence i,e, 7.1.2004, was more than 18 years. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a report of the Medical Board is not lawful as the same has been based upon an examination by the Dental Surgeon. Examination of teeth of a person is one of the modes of determining the age, which has also been acknowledge by a Medical Scholars.
Determination of age of the petitioner in terms of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and in accordance with the guidelines by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Akram Vs. Muhammad Haleem alias Hamayun and others (2004 SCM R 218), has rightly been assessed/determined. Petitioner could not point out any defect in the ossification test done by the Medical Board.
5. For what has been discussed above, I have no doubt in my mind that the trial Court has rightly concluded the matter and order impugned does not suffer from any error of law, thus the same requires no interference. This revision petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed.