This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 15.3.2006 and 8.7.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners for treating them as Juveniles were dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that case FIR No. 625 dated 17.8,2004 for offences under Sections 302/148/149 PPC was registered against the petitioners and others at the instance of the complainant Respondent No. 2 and after investigation the petitioners were challaned. The petitioners filed an application before the learned Court on 7.11.2005 for determination of their ages on the basis of school leaving certificates. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for referring the petitioners to the Medical Board for the determination of their ages which was constituted on the orders of the Court and in the reports dated 26.11.2005 submitted by the Board it was opined that the ages of the petitioners were 20/21 years and 21/22 years respectively. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners vide order dated 15.3.2006 on the ground that the medical opinion given by the Board had to be given preference over the school record as the authenticity of the school record was not above board. Through a second application dated 19.6.2006 the petitioners prayed for medical reexamination through Regional Appellate Medical Board for ascertaining their ages. The applications were contested by Respondent No. 2.
The learned Addl. Sessions Judge Faisalabad, vide order dated 8.7.2006 dismissed the said application on the premise that the order dated 15.3.2006 had not been challenged by the petitioners before this Court; that in the opinion of the Medical Board the petitioners were above the ages of 18 years at the time of occurrence and that the Court could not review its earlier order passed on the previous application of the petitioners, hence, the instant revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that on the date of occurrence the petitioners were below the age of 18 years according to the school leaving certificates and that the date of birth of the eldest brother namely Syed Azhar Hussain Shah was 30.10.1986 according to Union Council's record, hence, his age on the date of occurrence was 17 years, 2 months and 16 days whereas the petitioners were born after their sister namely Gulshan Fatima, hence, the petitioners were under the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence. Further, submitted that the medical hoard had joined hands with the complainant and had wrongly declared their ages as 20/21 years and 21/22 years respectively against the facts and documents on the record. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Ishaque (2002 SCM R 440).
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 submitted that the order dated 15.3.2006 whereby the matter regarding the ages of the petitioners had been finally settled by the learned trial Court was never challenged in revision, hence the same had attained finality and could not be challenged before this Court. Further stated that the second application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable under the law as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Faisalabad after having passed the orders aforementioned could not review the same. He also submitted that with the second application birth certificate of Muhammad Azhar Hussain Shah brother of the petitioners was appended and the birth certificates of the petitioners were not attached with either of the two applications and that the birth certificate of the brother of the petitioners could not be made a basis for determining the ages of the petitioners. The learned counsel maintained that the school leaving certificates were fabricated by the petitioners, hence of no consequence. He has relied upon Javed Iqbal vs. The State (2004 P.Cr.L.J. 105), Sadeeque Khan vs. The State and another (2004 Y.L.R. 2847), Nauman Yousaf vs. The State and another (2005 PCr.LJ 1719), Sultan Ahmad vs. Additional Sessions Judge-I Mianwali and 2 others (PLD 2004 SC 758) and Muhammad Akram vs. Muhammad Haleem alias Hamayun and others (2004 S.C.M.R. 218).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In the instant case the FIR was lodged on 17.8.2004 by Respondent No 2 which was investigated by the police and the challan was submitted in the trial Court. The petitioners filed an application on 7.11.2005 claiming trial under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 on the ground that they were below the ages of 18 years at the time of occurrence and in support thereof place reliance upon school leaving certificates. Subsequently on another application filed by the petitioners, medical board was constituted which unanimously opined vide reports dated 26.11.2005 that the age of Petitioner No. 1 Noor-ul-Hassan was 20/21 years that age of Petitioner No. 2 Sibtain Shah was 21/22 years. The learned trial Court on the basis of the reports submitted by the medical board dismissed the application of the petitioners for declaring them juvenile. The petitioners instead of assailing the said order opted to file a second application on 19.6.2006 before the same learned Court seeking determination of ages of the petitioners through Regional Appellate Medical Board on the ground that the previous Medical Board had given its opinion under the influence of and in connivance with the complainant which was also dismissed by the learned Court on 8.7.2006 holding that the earlier order had attained finality and that the Court could not review its previous order. A perusal of the record reveals that the learned trial Court had constituted the medical board on the application of the petitioners/accused and according to the reports of the medical board refered to above the petitioners were adults at the time of the occurrence. The medical board has given a conclusive opinion regarding the ages of the petitioners contrary to the ages mentioned in the school leaving certificates. The allegations of collusion of the complainant with the Medical Board remained unsubstantiated by the petitioners. Further, the petitioners when they first approached the learned Court in the said regard did not append their birth certificates but instead chose to rely upon school leaving certificates. It is a well settled principle of law that the opinion of the medical board regarding age has precedence over school leaving certificate which is susceptible to manipulation and manoeuvring. Reference is made to the case of Muhammad Sadeeque Khan us. The State and another (2004 Y.L.R. 2847). Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Ahmad vs. .Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Mianwali and 2 others (PLD 2004 S.C. 758) has laid great emphasis on the opinion of Medical Experts which can provide valuable guidance to a Court in resolving the controversy regarding age of an accused.
7. The petitioners in their second application relied upon the birth certificate of their eldest brother Muhammad Azhar Hussain Shah who, according to the petitioners, was born on 30.10.1986. In the first application. Petitioner No. 1 Noor-ul-Hassan was shown to be one year older to Sibtain Shah Petitioner No. 2. The date of birth of Sibtain Shah as mentioned in the said application is 29.4.1988 and if Noor-ul-Hassan is one year older to Sibtain Shah then his date of birth would be around 29.4.1987 which when compared with the date of birth of Syed Muhammad Azhar Hussain Shah would show an interval of 6 months between the births of the two brothers with an intervening sister which is an impossibility. This leads to one inference only that authenticity of the certificate is not above board.
8. For reasons mentioned above no reliance can be placed upon the documents submitted by the petitioners before the learned trial Court. Even otherwise the petitioners have not been able to point out any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders.
9. In so far as the case of Muhammad Ishaq (2002 SCM R 440) relied upon as the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned the same produced on absolutely different and completely distinguishable facts.
10.The upshot of the above discussion is that the revision petition is without any substance which is dismissed.