' CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.---Through this Criminal Revision the order dated 2-10-2012 passed by Ch. Muhammad Tariq, learned Additional Sessions Judge Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh has been assailed whereby he relying on the birth certificate of the petitioner declared that he was not a child/juvenile.
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner Muhammad Zubair is involved in case F.I.R . No .644 dated 26-9-2011 under section 302/34, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh relating to the murder of one Muhammad Junaid a minor son of the complainant. The petitioner moved an application for declaring him juvenile so as to be tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 The learned trial court conducted an inquiry. The ossification test was also got conducted and according to the medical report he was found to be 17-18 years old whereas according to the report of Dental Surgeon the dental age of the petitioner was found to be 17-25 years. The Medical Superintendent opined that the age of the petitioner was 17 years.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court instead of considering the medical report and the expert opinion, relied on the birth certificate of the petitioner submitted by the complainant according to which the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 28-6-1993. The learned counsel argued that the impugned order is illegal and is not sustainable in the eye of law. The petitioner was a juvenile and his trial had to be conducted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. In support of his arguments he referred to 2006 PCr.LJ 211 [Lahore] (Malik Sajjad Ahmad v. The State and another), 2008 PCr.LJ 710 [Lahore] (Adeel Hassan v. The State and another), PLD 2008 Lahore 220 (Tauseef alias Captain v. The State and another) and 2004 SCMR. 218 (Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem alias Hamayun and others).
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order.
5. Admittedly, the trial Court is required to conduct an inquiry for determination of the age of the accused where he claims to be a juvenile. The relevant provision of law contained in section 7 of the said Ordinance is reproduced as under:-- "Determination of age.---If a question arises as to whether a person before it is a child for the purposes 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."
6. A perusal of the above provision of law shows that medical report is not the sole criteria for determination of the age of the accused. It is one of the pieces of evidence to be considered for this purpose. The medical report can be relied upon if there is no other cogent evidence on the record regarding age of the accused. In the instant case the complainant has succeeded in getting the certified copy of the birth certificate of the petitioner according to which the petitioner was born on 28-6-1993 and his birth was reported on the very next day i.e. 29-6-1993 by Ghulam Rasool, Chowkidar. Till today this birth certificate in which even the name of the petitioner is mentioned as Zubair stands unrebutted. From this piece of evidence the trial court was in a position to ascertain the exact date of birth of the petitioner so it was rightly relied upon to determine the age of 'the petitioner and according to this birth certificate the petitioner was 18 years 2 months and 26 days old at the time of occurrence so he does not fall within the definition of child and could not claim the separate trial to be conducted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. In the given circumstances, when there is nothing on the record to rebut the birth certificate there was no reason for the trial Court to discard this authentic piece of evidence. As regard the medical report; the exact age of any person cannot be ascertained and determined by it. Even in the instant case there is difference between the report of Dental Surgeon and the Ossification test. When the exact date of birth is proved on the record through birth certificate the medical report cannot be given preference over the same. As regards the case law referred to above, the facts and circumstances of the said cases are quite distinguishable from those of the present case. As per 2008 PCr.LJ 710 [Lahore] (Adeel Hassan v. The State and another) there was no evidence available on the record except the medical examination of the accused so the court was left with no option but to rely on the same whereas in the instant case it is not so. Similarly, in PLD 2008 Lahore 220 (Tauseef alias Captain v. The State and another) the school certificate and the certificate of union council had conflicting entries so the medical report was relied upon but in the instant case an un-rebutted birth certificate is available. As regards the case law referred to above i.e. 2008 PCr.LJ 211 [Lahore] (Malik Sajjad Ahmed v. The State and another) the school leaving certificate was found not to be an authentic document so the report of the medical board had to be relied upon whereas no birth certificate was available in that case. In 2004 SCMR 218 (Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem alias Hamayun and others) the matter was remanded as there was no evidence on the record for determination of the age of the accused. In 2009 SCMR 1073 (Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Suffiyan and another) the entry of birth in school leaving certificate and result card were not found to be independent sources of information about the age of the accused as the said documents were based on the information volunteered himself by the student or some one connected with him and the report of the medical board was not challenged by anyone so it was relied upon. In 2012 YLR 161 [Peshawar] (Muhammad Malik Afzal and others v.
Muhammad Noor through L.Rs) it was held that entries of N.I.C. Carry the presumption of truth as in the said case the birth certificate and school certificate were inline with N.I.C. I would rely on 2002 PCr.LJ 2034 [Lahore] (Mehboob Ahmad v. The State and 2 others) wherein it was held that for determination of age the medical opinion cannot over ride the certificate of birth. The facts of this case-law are applicable in the instant case wherein the birth certificate has been preferred over the medical report.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the case law referred to above, I am of the view that where a birth certificate is available on the record and it is not rebutted by the other side through any cogent evidence and the entry in the birth register is incorporated in normal course of business it carries presumption of correctness and the medical report cannot be preferred over such an unrebutted document authenticity of which is not doubtful. The school certificate in absence of birth certificate cannot be of any help as the entry therein is volunteered by the student himself or some of his relatives at the time of admission. Similarly, a birth certificate procured after the occurrence carrying late entry cannot be considered to he an authentic document to determine the age of the accused. The learned trial Court in the instant case has rightly preferred birth certificate over the medical report and the impugned order suffers from no legal infirmity and warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as the said order has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercising the jurisdiction vested in him. In these circumstances, this criminal revision is dismissed-in-limine being devoid of any substance.