' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.--- This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 26-4-2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal whereby he accepted the application of the accused-respondent No, 2 for declaring him as juvenile and ordered separate trial.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this criminal revision are that the respondents No, 2 along with 6 other co-accused were involved in case bearing F.I.R. No, 11-04 dated 5-1-2004 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station City Sahiwal for the alleged murder of Bilal Ahmad. Challan was sent to the Court and an application under section 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 was filed to the effect that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was less than 18 years of age and was a child within the meaning of section 2-B of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. This application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was opposed by the complainant. On filing the applications under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, the learned trial Court directed the Medical Superintendent D.H.Q. Hospital Sahiwal to get the respondent-accused medically examined in order to determine his age. Accordingly, a Medical Board was constituted at the said hospital in which the Medical Superintendent was the Chairman while other members of the Board were Dr. Waseem Safdar, Surgeon, Dr. Arif Mahmood, Radiologist, Dr. Kashif Riaz, Dental Surgeon, Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Sh. APMO/DMS, and Dr. Khawar Saeed, Physician. According to the report of this Board the age of the respondent-accused was 18 years plus minus on year. In the light of this report and relying on Hassan Zafar v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1939 the learned Additional Sessions Judge declared the respondent/accused as Juvenile and started his trial. Against this order, the instant criminal revision has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document required for determining the age is in fact the school leaving certificate, according to which Ehsan respondent-accused is of 23 years of age and the report of Medical Board is not reliable, according to which the age of the petitioner is plus-minus 18 years. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention Mahboob Ahmad v. The State and 2 others 2002 PCr.LJ 2034; Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem 2002 PCr.LJ 633; Muhammad Ishaque v. Muhammad Nadeem and another 2001 M LD 1561 and prayed that the school leaving certificate was more authentic because at the time of admission of school, the parents could not visualize that this certificate could ever be produced in a Court of law, therefore, the presumption of correctness is given to the certificates of school authorities.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused heavily relied upon the medical report and submitted that the respondent-accused was thoroughly examined by the Medical Board and unanimous opinion was formed that the respondent-accused was 18 years plus minus one year.
According to the learned counsel medical report should be given preference over the school leaving certificate. While referring to Hassan Zafar v. The State (supra) he submitted that the birth entries do not have any sanctity, as they are liable to be changed.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
5. The dispute between the parties at this stage relates to the determination of age of respondent- accused who claims to be a child within the meaning of section 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The relevant provision is section 7 of the said Ordinance which is reproduced as under:- "Determination of age. --- If a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purpose of this 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."
' Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant are relying on the school leaving certificate of the respondent-accused, according to which he is of 23 years of age. The authenticity of this certificate has been denied by the respondent/accused. Accordingly, the learned trial Court had rightly referred this matter to the Medical Board for opinion. The Medical Superintendent, D.H.Q.
Hospital, Sahiwal formed Board comprising of Surgeon, Radiologist, Dental Surgeon, APMO/DMS, Physician. The Radiologist gave the following report:-- Eiphyseal Centre Age of Union Status Female Male Wrist Fused ------ 17 Elbow Fused ------ 15 Humeral Head Fused ------ 19 Femoral Head Fused ------ 17-1/2 Tibial Proximal End Fused ------ 17-1/2 IIiac crest Not Fused 21 ' While the Dental Surgeon in his report stated that:-- "According to my assessm ent the age of Ahsan son of Muhammad Azam is round about 18-19 years."
' Finally unanimous opinion of the Board was as follows:- "that accused Ihsan son of Shani is about eighteen years + one (18+1) years of age."
' According to the opinion of the Medical Board, the age of the respondent-accused is 18-19 (plus minus one year), and thus, was a child within the scope of section 2-B of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
6. Along with the application moved by the respondent-accused under section 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 filed certain papers of age of the accused showing him less than 18 years at the time of occurrence and was a child within the meaning of section 7 (ibid). However, these papers/documents were not accepted by the complainant, who submitted that the documents so produced were forged. Under the circumstances when allegations of forgery were made by both the sides on the documents so produced, the order was rightly passed by the learned trial Court for medical examination of the accused/respondent;
7. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not help him.
' In Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem (supra), it has been held that if the question regarding the age of accused cannot be answered through documentary evidence, then an inquiry to the age of the accused can be undertaken.
' In Muhammad Ishaque v. Muhammad Naeem and another (supra) it has been held that unless there are allegations of fraud and forgery, the documentary evidence is to be relied upon.
' In the instant case, the documentary evidences available on the file are disputed by the parties.
' In Mahboob Ahmad v. The State and 2 others (supra) it has been held that the medical report has been wrongly given preferences to the birth certificates of the accused. In this case, as no allegations of fraud have been levied, therefore, this judgment according to the facts and circumstances is differentiated and does not apply to the case in hand.
8. In this regard, reliance is placed on Sultan Ahmad v. Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali PLD 2004 SC 758, in which it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that when genuineness of certificates are questioned then the normal course for the trial Court is to D get the accused medically examined by a competent Medical Board to reach a just decision regarding his age.
9. Under the circumstances, the medical report that has been given by the Medical Board carries weight and should be a determining factor for deciding age of the respondent-accused.
According to this certificate the age of the respondent-accused is 18 years (plus minus one year) on 30-3-2005. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 5-1-2005, therefore, considering all these facts, the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the case of the respondent accused is fully covered within the meaning of section 7 of Juvenile Justice System, Ordinance, 2000 and accordingly the trial was rightly separated.
10. In the light of what has been stated above, this criminal revision is dismissed.