CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Through this criminal revision, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26-6-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner along with one Rizwan Qadir co-accused were involved in case F.I.R. No,362 of 2009, dated 5-8-2009 for the offences under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Barana, Tehsil Lalian, District Chiniot.
The petitioner, as per his birth entry recorded in register of Union Council, was born on 4-2-1992, so he was less than 18 years of age at the time of commission of alleged offence. The petitioner, produced relevant documents before the Investigating Officer of the case who after verification of birth certificate prepared a separate report under section 173, Cr.P.C. for the trial of the petitioner under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No,2 (complainant) submitted an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that the petitioner was adult at the time of alleged occurrence, therefore, the petitioner could not be a subject of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. Learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the medical board to conduct the medical examination of the petitioner who after performing ossification test declared that the petitioner was about 23 years of age. Hence this criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in presence of birth certificate, ossification test has no value and even otherwise when there are two views available about the age of the accused, the view favouring the accused is to be accepted. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 2010 SCM R 182 and has prayed that the criminal revision be accepted, the impugned judgment be set aside and the petitioner be declared as juvenile.
4. Conversely, learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently controverted this criminal revision on the ground that the petitioner was adult at the time of the occurrence and there is overwhelming evidence available on record that the petitioner was not minor at the time of the occurrence.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced from all corners and have also gone through the record available on file.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner applied to the National Database and Registration Authority, Government of Pakistan for obtaining his computerized I.D. Card. The petitioner submitted his form in which he recorded his date of birth as 1-1-1990. The petitioner signed the form and also put his thumb impression confirming contents of the form and after obtaining I.D. Card on 21-5-2008, the petitioner applied to the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan for loan. When confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner could not rebut these documents. Further the petitioner was put to ossification test on 12-3-2010 in which five senior doctors unanimously held that the petitioner is about 23 years of age. Further, in ground (e) of the criminal revision, the petitioner has himself admitted the issuance of National Identity Card to him, therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is minor has no force. In the absence of documentary evidence about the age, the best method to determine the age of someone in the present era is the ossification test/report of Radiologist as the same having been based on the result of highly technical and advanced equipment.
7. The ossification test of the petitioner clearly shows that the petitioner was about 23 years of age at the time of the test. There is also other overwhelming evidence available on record that the petitioner was not minor at the time of alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. No interference is called for.
8. The outcome of the whole discussion is that the petitioner was not minor at the time of the alleged occurrence, therefore he cannot be tried under juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
The criminal revision in hand is devoid of any substance, hence the same is dismissed.