1. ' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J. --- Through this appeal, by leave of the Court, the appellant impugns the order dated 11.3.2014 passed by the learned Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 474 of 2013 whereby the order dated 04.05.2013 passed by the learned ,addl. Sessions Judge, Kasur was upheld and prayer of the appellant to declare him juvenile within the meaning of section 2(b) of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 was declined.
2. On 15.07.2014, leave to appeal was granted by this Court which is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "The issue in this case is about the age of the petitioner , if he was juvenile or not at the time of commission of offence. As per the NADRA record he was less than the age of 18 years at the relevant time, but according to the report of the Standing Medical Board dated 13.02.2013 (forwarded on 26.2.2013); his age was reported to be 18 to 20 years. Thus, in order to examine if the record maintained by the NADRA shall have the precedence over the medical report of the Standing Medical Board or otherwise; and also even if taking into account the said report, still the possibility that the petitioner was minor on the relevant date cannot be ruled out, leave is granted. "
3. Appellant is an accused in case FIR No, 379/2012, dated 10.08.2012 offence under sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 148, 149, PPC registered at P.S. Mustafa Abad regarding the murder of Muhammad Sohail and causing injury to Muhammad lrshad. He made an application before the learned Trial Court on 11.12.2012 asserting that at the time of alleged occurrence, his age was less than 15 years, as such, he be declared a juvenile and in support of such assertion he relied on school leaving certificate, entry in the Register of Births maintained at the relevant Union Council and Form-3 of the National Database Registering Authority (NADRA). The claim of the appellant is that as per birth certificate record supported by Form-B prepared by NDRA, the appellant was born on 12.02.1996; his age at the time of occurrence was below 18 years and therefore, he be declared a child within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and his trial should have been conducted separately . On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No, 2 while relying upon the report of the Medical Board dated 13.02.2013 vehemently argued that the Medical Board opined that the age of the appellant was 18 to 20, the Trial Court has rightly concluded the age of the appellant as 18 years, six months and two days at the time of occurrence and the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No, 2, learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab and going through the material available on record, we note that at the time of occurrence, the date of birth of the appellant, if considered in view of the entries in the Register of Births and Form- B of the NADRA is 12.12.1996. However , as per report of the Medical Board the possibility of age of appellant as 18 years has not been ruled out so if this report is taken into consideration coupled with the Birth Certificate and the record of NADRA, it can safely be concluded that the appellant was less than 13 years of age at the time of occurrence. It is also pertinent to mention here that the report of the Medical Board has never been objected to by the respondent side before the learned Trial Court.
5. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed, the impugned orders of the learned High Court dated 26.03.2014 and that of learned Trial Court dated 04.05.2013 are set aside. Consequently , the appellant is declared as a juvenile within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.