Through this criminal revision petition under Sections 435, 439, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.07.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan through which the application submitted by him to declare him juvenile has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant to the matter in hand are that petitioner was booked in respect of case FIR No, 374/2014, dated 16.08.2014, in respect of offence under Section 302, PPC at Police Station Alpa, District Multan., the trial of which was in progress. During trial petitioner moved an application for his trial as juvenile accused with the assertion that at the time of alleged occurrence he was aged about 16 years and 11 months, so he could not be tried as major accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that according to record maintained by NADRA , petitioner was less than 18 years of aged at the time of alleged occurrence, which took place on 16.08.2014, he was 16 years and 11 months of age; that the learned trial Court had straightaway dismissed the application without following the procedure laid down under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000.
4. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with the contention that the application was filed at a belated stage. The trial of the case has already been concluded and the case was at the stage of final arguments. The petitioner should have taken the plea of juvenility at the earliest, hence the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order , it has been noticed that Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 clearly reflects that if a question to determine the age of a child arises, the learned Juvenile Court shall record findings after an inquiry which shall include a medical report for determination of the age of the child. The petitioner has specifically claimed through NADRA record that he is less than 18 years of age, hence it was mandatory for the learned trial Court to hold inquiry regarding determination of age of the petitioner through ossification test. The provision clearly indicates that no stage has been mentioned therein for filing application for determination of age of an accused for the purpose of declaring him juvenile or otherwise.
6. In the above back drop, this criminal revision is accepted, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned trial Court for holding inquiry including ossification test as per rules to determine the age of the accused and then to formulate an opinion on the question of juvenility .