IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---Through this criminal revision, Majid Khan-petitioner challenges the findings of the learned trial Court dismissing the application moved on his behalf seeking declaration to be a juvenile at the time of commission of crime. The occurrence took place on 20- 11-2010 and when the present petitioner along with two others appeared before the learned trial Court facing trial of the said offence, an application under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, was moved on behalf of the present petitioner stating therein that he was less than the age of eighteen years at the time of the alleged commission of crime and thus, he be declared as a juvenile. This application was supported with Birth Entry of the petitioner and School Leaving Certificate.
2. The learned trial Court ordered an inquiry and as one step of such inquiry, the matter was referred to a Medical Board, which Board after conducting of ossification test rendered a unanimous opinion with regard to the age of the petitioner and he was declared 22/23 years of age. In addition to such medical test, learned trial Court has also examined the witnesses on that limited question including the Principal of Standard Public School, Railway Workshop Road, Rawalpindi and a Secretary from Union Council and after such inquiry, the application moved on behalf of the petitioner for treating him as a juvenile was dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 12-9-2012, which is under challenge in the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much emphasis on the documents viz. Birth Entry in the Union Council and School Leaving Certificate and has argued that such entries must be given preference to the unanimous opinion of Medical Board conducted ossification test of the petitioner and insisted that he be declared a juvenile.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State has opposed the petition and argued that it is a medical test which should have been given preference and when report of such Board has not been challenged and the petitioner has never demanded any re-examination, there is no justification in asking to completely ignore such findings of ossification test or to give preference to the documents i.e. Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate.
5. It is a fact that the petitioner applied for a declaration of his being a juvenile and in Para.4 of his petition moved under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, he himself suggested the ossification test through a Medical Board and the same has been termed by the petitioner as a mandatory step within the meaning of section 7 ibid. It is also noteworthy that the findings arrived at by the Medical Board declaring the petitioner as 22-23 years of age on 7-7-2011 have nowhere been challenged by him and he has never demanded any re-examination by creating doubts on such opinion of Medical Board.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as "Muhammad Anwar v.
Muhammad Suffyian and another" (2009 SCM R 1073) while dealing with the similar issue has held that the documents such like the Birth Entry or School Leaving Certificate could not be found to be conclusive proof of the age of concerned person as the same were not prepared on independent sources of information about the age of the person concerned but all such documents are creation of the information rendered by the concerned person himself or someone connected with him. The ossification test was done at the request of the petitioner himself and findings so arrived at by the Medical Board, as noted above, were never further challenged, thus, attained finality.
Learned trial Court also recorded statements of the Principal of concerned school and Secretary of the Union Council as A.W.1 and A.W.2, respectively and what borne out from such statements is that School Leaving Certificate was got prepared on 22-4-2011 after commission of crime on the information extended either by the petitioner or any person connected with him. Secretary Union Council, when appeared in the witness-box as A.W.2, has stated that in the relevant column of his record the name of mid-wife was not written rather the word RGH (Rawalpindi General Hospital) was mentioned. This necessitated the summoning of C.W.1 a Record Keeper from RGH presently known as Benazir Bhutto Hospital who, after consultation of his record, has deposed that entry of Birth of the petitioner in the year 1993 is not available in the relevant record maintained by the Hospital. Accumulative effect of the documents and statements of the witnesses makes it a dubious matter to place any reliance on such documents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on a judgment reported as "Sultan Ahmed v. Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mianwali and 2 others" (PLD 2004 SC 758) and, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in such reported matter has nowhere mentioned that birth entries must be given preference to the medical test.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is badly mistaken, for, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the reported matter has remanded back the matter to the learned trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, including a reference to a competent Medical Board for examination of the accused regarding his age and further held whenever a question of the age of an accused person is raised or arises, he must be subjected to a medical test unless strong reasons existed or could be offered for not doing so.
9. In view of the above, when occurrence took place on 20-11-2010 the petitioner was not a child within the meaning of section 2(b) of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, thus, findings arrived at by the learned trial Court by means of the impugned order dated 12-9-2010 are justified and do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
10. Resultantly, I see no force in this petition, which is dismissed.