SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMS!, J.---Through the instant criminal revision petition vires of an order dated 09.02.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gujranwala have been assailed whereby the application filed by respondent No.2 for declaring him as juvenile offender was accepted.
2. Respondent No.2 is facing trial in case FIR No.270, dated 03.8.2013, which was registered at police station, Ferozewala, District Gujranwala under sections 364-A and 302, P.P.C., in which it was alleged that respondent No.2 had abducted the daughter of the complainant, raped her and then murdered her.
3. During the trial proceedings on 12.6.2014 respondent No.2 filed an application with the prayer that at the time of occurrence he was having the age of less than 15 years thus under section 2-B of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 he comes within the ambit of 'Child' and be declared as an juvenile offender. This petition was contested by the complainant and the learned trial court after hearing both parties while relying upon Form-B and birth certificate issued by NADRA in respect of respondent No.2 declared him as juvenile offender.
4. The reason which prevailed upon the mind of the learned Court for declaring the respondent as juvenile offender, as noted above, was that the birth certificate issued by NADRA was an official document, which was prepared much before the date of occurrence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on twofold grounds, firstly that under section 7 of the Ordinance (ibid) the Court is required to hold an inquiry by summoning the relevant record and the persons related with that record; and secondly, that for having the correct view about the age of the assailant a medical report is also needed in the form of securing ossification test. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection has relied upon the cases of 'Sultan Ahmed v. Addl: Sessions Judge, Mianwali and 2 others' (PLD 2004 SC 758) and 'Ahmad Sher v. The State and another (2006 PCr.LJ 1450).
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 while citing the case of `Ghulam Abbas v. The State and others' (2014 PCr.LJ 858) has submitted that it was not necessary in each case to hold an inquiry, particularly when the documents relied upon by the Court had come from official custody and were prepared much prior in time than registration of the criminal case; and that ossification test of an accused would only be necessary and relevant when no authentic documentary evidence was available.
7. Parties have been heard and record perused.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that inquiry was essentially to be held by the court while determining the age of the respondent in the given circumstances of this case, does not seem to be a mandatory requirement for the reason that the documents, Form-B and the birth certificate of the respondent, have come from the official custody and were prepared under NADRA Ordinance, 2000 thus enjoy a presumption of truth, unless this presumption is rebutted through very strong and cogent evidence. The petitioner has not placed on file any document countering that the age of the respondent mentioned in the Birth Certificate was incorrectly recorded nor it could be rebutted that the documents relied upon by the Court below were fabricated and fake. Simple statement of the petitioner that the respondent was not a child within the meaning of the Ordinance, 2000 is not enough to negate out-rightly the official documents, the authenticity and genuineness of which is undoubted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Form-B contains cutting, which has made that form as doubtful, is a wishful argument as the particulars mentioned in that form do not contain any cutting or tampering. According to that document, the birth entry was recorded in the official record and old registration number has also been mentioned in the birth certificate meaning thereby that the entry of the birth of the respondent was made in the official record in 1999 when respondent No.2 had born on 10.8.1999, definitely at that time neither the respondent nor his parents were having the knowledge that the respondent in future would commit a crime and to forestall they had created evidence. In the case of Sultan Ahmed (supra) it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that during the trial of a person an inquiry can be held in respect of the age of the accused if and whenever it appears to be necessary to the Court. These words used in the judgment clearly bestow a discretion in the court to see whether there was any need to hold an inquiry for the determination of the age of the accused person and if the court is not satisfied then it has jurisdiction to hold such inquiry by summoning the original record and the authors of that record.
9. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding conduct of ossification test for determining the age of the respondent in the case is concerned, the Apex Court in the same judgment has also dealt with this question by observing that whenever a question of age of an accused person is raised or arose, he must be subjected to medical test unless strong reason existed or could be offered for not doing so. When this principle laid down by the Apex Court is applied to the instant case, it is found that there are sufficient strong reasons for not subjecting the respondent to the medical test as the documents produced by the respondent before the court are genuine and authentic and have maintained under a statutory provision and in rebuttal of the same no evidence was produced by the petitioner. No doubt onus to prove his minority is rested upon respondent No.2 but he has discharged that onus by producing birth certificate and Form-B, where after it was the complainant to disprove that documentary evidence by producing convincing and cogent documentary evidence. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in these terms does not advance his case rather it helps respondent No.2 in the above terms. The order of learned trial Court in these circumstances to proceed with the case of the respondent under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 did not suffer from any legal infirmity as such the same is upheld.
10. For the reasons stated above, the petition in hand having no merits is dismissed.