Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2005 YLR 101

MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs MUHAMMAD ISLAM and another

Citation2005 YLR 101
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Revision No,1076 of 2003
Date2004-03-25
Judge(s)Ch. Iftikhar Hussain
ResultRevision accepted accordingly

ORDER

' Petitioner Muhammad Shafi through the instant revision petition has challenged the correctness of the order dated 16-10-2003 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge; Khushab whereby he has treated respondent No,1 Muhammad Islam to be a juvenile and dismissed the petitioner's application for summoning of the record of. Form ( ) of the respondent No,1 from the National Registration Officer concerned.

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that respondent No,1 has been challaned to the Court in Case F.I.R. No,75 dated 13-7-2003 under section 302, P.P.C.

Registered with Police Station Katha Saghral, He claimed himself to be the child within the meaning assigned to the words in the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner, who is complainant in the case has disputed his claim of Juvenility.

3. The learned trial Court in order to resolve the dispute regarding his age had held an inquiry into the matter. It has sought for the report of the Medical Board for the purpose. The petitioner during the same produced birth entry of the respondent No, 1 . According to the same, his date of birth is 6-12-1984. It mentioned that he as per his birth entry was more than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, relied upon the medical evidence in respect of his age and declared him to be the juvenile.

5. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of the same has come up with the instant petition.

6. It has been argued on his behalf that the birth record of the respondent No,1 was mere preferable than the medical opinion in respect of his age; that despite the fact that the petitioner has brought an application for summoning of record of Form ( ) of the respondent No,1 from the National Registration Office concerned before the learned "Sessions Judge for the purpose but he did not consider it properly and so erred in dismissing his such application and declaring the respondent No,1 to be the juvenile.

7. As against the same, the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has supported the impugned order saying that medical opinion is more preferable than the birth record for determining the question of juvenility of an accused and so the learned Sessions Judge has not at all erred in placing reliance upon the medical opinion on the question of age of the respondent No,l.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties with the help of the available record.

9. The dispute as regards the age of respondent No, 1/accused has arisen in the case. He claims to be a juvenile within the meaning assigned to the word in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

The petitioner has disputed his such claim. The learned Sessions Judge in order to resolve the controversy has called for report of the Medical Board. The petitioner has produced the copy of the birth entry of the respondent No,1 before him. According to the same, he was more than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident.

10. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the medical opinion in this matter. According to the opinion of the Medical Board, the age of the respondent No,1/accused is 16/17 years. On the basis of which, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that he is the child. He with the same did not feel the necessity to call for the record of the Form ( u ) from the C National Registration Office in respect of respondent No,1 for the purpose. The fact remains that the learned Sessions Judge was required to give finding about the acceptability or otherwise of the birth entry of the respondent No,1. He but has not done so.

11. The said question has not been effectively resolved in the case without the same. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be interfered with.

12. I, therefore, accept this revision petition. Set aside the impugned order with the direction to the learned Sessions Judge to decide afresh the question of the age of the respondent No,1 in the light of the material/proof produced by the parties before him in accordance with law. accordingly.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch