' ARSHAD MAHMOOD TABASSUM, J. --- This petition under Sections 435, 439, Cr.P.C. Calls in question order dated 30.03.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianchannu, District Khanewal, whereby he dismissed application dated 07.03.2012, filed by the petitioners for declaring them juvenile within the meaning of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners, along with other co-accused persons. Are facing trial before the learned Trial Court in case F.I.R. No 289 of 2011, dated 07.07.2011, for offences under Sections 302, 109, 148, 149, PPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Mianchannu, District Khanewal. During pendency of the trial, they submitted an application dated 07.03.2012, claiming themselves to be juvenile on the basis of their school leaving certificates, wherein date of birth of Muhammad Fazil, petitioner was recorded as 04.04.1995, whereas that of Muhammad Sharif was recorded as 21.06.1993. The said application was contested by the complainant, whereupon both the petitioners were referred to the Medical Superintendent, Nishtar Hospital, Multan for their ossification test. The report of the Medical Board dated 07.08.2012 shows that in the opinion of Medical Board, the age of Muhammad Sharif, petitioner was found between seventeen to nineteen years (17 to 19) while that of Muhammad Fazil, petitioner was found between eighteen to twenty years (18 to 20). It appears that the learned Trial Court also requisitioned the record of the Union Council concerned, wherein date of birth of Muhammad Fazil, petitioner was recorded as 04.07.1988, which was so recorded on 21.08.1988, while the age of Muhammad Sharif, petitioner was recorded as 09.11.1991 and it was so recorded on 16.11.1991. The learned Trial Court, therefore, while considering the available record, report of Medical Board, school leaving certificates produced by the petitioners and the entries in the Registrar of Births, maintained by the Union Council concerned, concluded as under:- ' "It is seen that Muhammad Fazil and Muhammad Sharif petitioners as being accused, claimed their trial, being tender age, separately from other accused, contending in the application, that as per their dates of birth mentioned in school leaving certificates, they were minor at the time of alleged occurrence. The perusal of school leaving certificates provided by both petitioners, available on this judicial file, showed that the date of birth of Muhammad Fazil, in school leaving certificate, is mentioned as 04.04.1995 and date of birth of Muhammad Sharif has shown 21.06.1993, so, as per school leaving certificates, Muhammad Sharif is elder to Muhammad Fazil as both are brothers, whereas, the record of Union Council, verified by Secretary U.C., while appearing before Court get recording his statement, depicts that Muhammad Fazil is elder to Muhammad Sharif his brother. This stance discredit, the documentary evidence made available by Muhammad Fazil and Muhammad Sharif petitioners/accused, moreover, during the course of arguments upon Court query, it was verified by Muhammad Fazil, that he is elder to Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Sharif confirmed that he is younger to Muhammad Fazil, thus, no significance, could be attached to school leaving certificates, provided by Muhammad Fazil and Muhammad Sharif, whereas, a credible record of Union Council, qua the birth entry of Muhammad Fazil, showed that Muhammad Fazil was born on 04.07.1988, then he was about 23-years old at the time of alleged occurrence, whereas, the said record of union council, showed the date of birth of Muhammad Sharif as 09.01.1991, then he was about 191,4 years old. As per opinion of medical board mere provide only a clue, about the age of are examinee and same could not provide a conclusive age, then seeing that it is always remained a margin of one year on both the sides and in the opinion of medical board. The more dependable prima facie evidence is the documentary evidence, the record of union council qua the birth entry of both petitioners, which depicts that Muhammad Fazil and even Muhammad Sharif were fully major having above age from 18 years at the time of alleged occurrence and none of them was tender age, at that time. Thus, the application by the petitioners/accused Muhammad Fazil and Muhammad Sharif stands dismissed.
3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred the instant criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Trial Court has erred in law while giving preference to the entries in the Register of Births over the report of Medical Board, which had concluded regarding juvenility of both the petitioners, holding that they were seventeen to twenty years old on the date of report i,e, 07.08.2012 and that the occurrence had taken place on 07.07.2011 and as such both the petitioners were minor in view of the said report. He has, therefore, concluded that the learned Trial Court hat illegally ignored the report of Medical Board as also school leaving certificates of the petitioners.
4. Conversely, the learned Law Officer assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition with vehemence.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Although the school leaving certificates, produced by the petitioners, show that the date of birth of Muhammad Sharif, petitioner is 21.06.1993 whereas that of Muhammad Fazil, petitioner is 04.04.1995, but the fact of the matter is that entries available in the Register of Births, maintained, by the Union Council No, 54, Tehsil Mianchannu District Khanewal contradict the entries of school leaving certificates. The dates of birth of the petitioners recorded in the said Register of Births were recorded therein soon after the respective births of the petitioners and the said entries have not been challenged by the petitioners at any forum including the learned Trial Court, hence, the entries of school leaving certificates could not be given preference over the entries of Register of Births. Moreover, falsity of the entries of school leaving certificates is evident from the fact that according to the said entries, Muhammad Sharif, petitioner has been shown older than Muhammad Fazil, petitioner, but when confronted by the learned Trial Court, Muhammad Fazil, petitioner admitted that he was elder to his brother Muhammad Sharif and the said Muhammad Sharif confirmed, this fact that he was younger to his brother Muhammad Fazil, thus, it appears that relevant entries in both the school leaving certificates are fake.
7. As regards the report of Medical Board, the same can merely provide a clue about the estimated age of an examiner and could not be treated as a conclusive proof. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of Muhammad Akram (2002 P.Cr.L.J. 633). Moreover, the medical opinion cannot override the entries incorporated in Register of Births so has been held in the case of Mehboob Ahmad (2002 P.Cr.L.J. 2034).
8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the entries in the Register of Births are prior In time, and an admitted fact between the parties which cannot be discarded. Moreover, the presumption of truth is attached to such entries in view of the provisions of Article 129, Illustration (f) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
9. In the light of above discussion, I am quite clear in my mind that the learned Trial Court has properly evaluated the material made available to it and has correctly arrived at the conclusion that both the petitioners are not juvenile within the meaning of Section 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. No legal infirmity has been detected in the impugned order, which is hereby upheld. This petition is, therefore, fails and the same is hereby dismissed/Criminal revision .
Criminal revision .