MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner Mir Ghulam son of Ghulam Rasool resident of Chaine, Tehsil Shounter, District Astore is facing trial before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Astore in the charges levelled against him under section 302, P.P.C. vide FIR No,26/2015 dated 06.11.2015 registered at Police Station City Astore.
2. As evident from the order dated 03-12-2016 on the joint request of counsel for the parties, the petitioner was referred to DHQ hospital Astore for assessment of his age.
3. Medical Superintendent DHQ hospital constituted a medical Board consisting of following Doctors:- President:- (Dr. Muhammad Saleem)
Senior Consultant Radiologist DHQ Hosiptal Gilgit1.
Member:- 1. (Dr. Shah Zaman)
Ordal Surgeon DHQ Hospital Gilgit.
2. (Dr. Muhammad Yaqoob)
APMO DHQ Hospital Gilgit.
4. On 15-11-2016 the medical board assembled and its verdict was communicated to the learned Sessions Judge Astore, through a letter No, 1139/DHQ/2015 dated. 16-11-2016, wherein the medical board assessed the age of the petitioner above 19 years. On receipt of age assessment certificate the learned trial Court indicted the petitioner and framed the charge. The PWs were summoned for 10-12-2016.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is minor as per his matriculation certificate No, 114508 dated 06.06.2014 where his date of birth has been shown 01-01- 1999. He was 16 years 10 months and 05 days of age at the time of commission of offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the finding of medical boards are against the facts and likewise the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 03-12-2016 is against the canon of justice and be set-aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2002 SCM R 629, 2002 PCr.LJ 2034 and 2002 PCr.LJ 633.
6. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General submits that the petition has been filed with a considerable delay and the findings of medical board are based on advance ossification test and the order of learned trial Court is based on sound reasoning.
7. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the available record annexed with the petition with their able assistance.
8. As evident from the order of learned trial Court on 22-10-2016, the petitioner was referred to a medical with consent of both the parties and on receipt of opinion of medical board, the petitioner produced matriculation certificate showing his age as 01-01-1999. Section 7 of juvenile justice System Ordinance, 2000 provides the mechanism of assessment of age of an accused. Section 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is reproduced as under:-
7. 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 age of the child.
9. The trial Court as stated supra can decide the question of age of an accused and may refer an accused to a medical board, if he deemed if necessary. The accused was referred to medical board, with consent of both the parties where his age was assessed "19 years". School leaving certificate or Form "B" will not have any preference over the report of medical Board as the age recorded in matriculation certificate is not conclusive proof of age, as reliance on a birth certificate or School leaving certificate is not safe. The learned trial Court passed the order on 03-12-2016, which has been belatedly challenged and no reasons have been mentioned for such a long and inordinate delay. There is no application for condonation of delay, which is also a factor which counts against the petitioner. The order of learned trial Court has been passed after due application of mind.
10. The result of above discussion the Criminal revision petition is devoid of any legal force and dismissed accordingly.