MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, CJ.----By means of instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 435/439, Cr.P.C. the petitioner , who is complainant of case FIR No.143/2016, dated 16.03.2016, offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered with Police Station City Toba, District Toba Tek Singh has called into question the validity of impugned order dated 10.03.2 018, passed by learned Additional Sess ions Judge, Toba Tek Singh by virtue of which accused/respondents Nos.1 to 5 were declared 'Juvenile' in terms of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
2. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant of the FIR), learned counsel for the respondents (accused), as well as, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab and evaluated the reasoning advanced by the learned court below insupport of its order , on the touchstone of judicial parlance.
3. Record available on file reflects that during the course of an unfortunate incident having taken place on the morning of 16.03.2016 within the territoria l jurisdiction of Police Station City Toba, District Toba Tek Singh, Ali Hanif, cousin (chachazad) of the complainant, a student of 10th class was done to death at the outer gate of school soon after he got free from appearing in the last paper of his examination. The matter was reported to the police by the present petitioner (complainant) wherein the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 5 along with others were arrayed as accused. After conclusion of investigation challan of the case was submitted before the learned trial court. During the course of trial the accused/responden ts while moving an application took the plea that they were juvenile within the purview of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000; as according to them ArsIan Zain-ul-Abidin accused/respondent was born on 10.09.2000, Hasnain Zafar accused claimed his date of birth as 25.01.1999, Muhammad Abu Bakar accused averred to have born on 16.08.1999, Umair Ghaf far accused stated to have born on 02.09.2001 whereas Muhammad Anwar accused claimed that he was born on 06.05.2000. However , learned trial court repelled their stance and dismissed the application vide order dated 22.06.2016. The accused assailed the order passed by the learned trial court before High Court through their respective petitions; wherein vide consolidated order dated 02.10.2017, the matter was remanded back to the learned trial court for decision afresh after holding an inquiry as required under the law. In the second round, the learned trial court fully exhausted the procedure pre-requisite for determining the question of juvenility in terms of Section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, as provided under Section 7 of the ibid Ordinance. Provisions of Section 7 ibid are reproduced below for ready reference:- "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 the age of the child "
Bare perusal of the provision of Section 7 reproduced above reflects that words 'child' as well as, 'inquiry' have been incorporated by the legislature. As far as term 'child' is concerned the same has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which is reproduced herein below:- "2. Definitions... (a)...
(b) 'child' means a person who at the time of commission of an offence has not attained the age of eighteen, years;"
As far as term 'adult' is concerned the same has not been defined in the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which is borrowed from Section 299, P .P.C., and is reproduced as under:- "299. Definitions . In this Chapter , unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,
(a) "adult" means a person who has attained, the age of eighteen years." Hence, determination of child/adult requires recording of evidence in view of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984. In the instant case, the record available on file reflects that the learned trial court during second round in the process of inquiry summoned the relevant record from the concerned quarters during the course of which Muhammad Awais, Elementary School Teacher/Reco rd Incharge of Government Model High School Jhang Road Toba Tek Singh produced the record pertaining to the age of Muhammad Anwar/accused according to which his date of birth is incorporated as 06.05.2000 at serial No.14412 in the relevant register of the school. Similar statement was made by Ghulam Murtaza Secretary Union Council No.32 regarding date of birth of this accused written in the birth certificate. Copy of birth register was also produced which was made part of the file as Mark-S. Moreover , date of birth of Hasnain Zafar accused was written as 25.01.1999 at Serial No.14668 in the record of school produced by Muhammad Awais EST/Record Incharge . Copy of the relevant register was marke d as 'Mark-B'. This aspect was further elaborated by the statement of Akhtar Rasool, Secretary Union Council No.51 who appeared before the learned trial court along with birth register of Chalc No.331/3B. It is relevant to mention here that entry of birth of Hasnain Zafar accused was incorporated on 25.01.1999 i.e. on the day of his birth. Muhammad Anwar SST, Government Islamia Secondary School Toba Tek Singh produced record pertaining to ArsIan Zain-ul-Abidin accused according to which his date of birth is 10.09.2000. Moreover Sultan Ahmed Junior Clerk/T ypist, representative of Municipal Committee, Toba Tek Singh also produced the record with regard to date of birth of Arslan Zain-ul-Abidin accused in the register of birth, copy of which was marked as Mark D and Mark D/1. This witness further stated that date of birth of Abu Bakar accused is recorded as 26.07.1999 in the record of Municipal Committee. Moazzam Rashid, Secretary of Union Council No.50, Toba Tek Singh stated that according to birth register maintained by Union Council, date of birth of Umair Ghaf far accused is 02.09.2001. Dilawar Hussain, Junior Executive of NADRA Office also appeared before the learned trial court and endorsed the plea taken by accused persons namely ArsIan Zain-ul-Abidin and Muhammad Anwar regarding dates of their birth. It is relevant to mention here that it is not the stance of the petitioner (complainant) that the documents produced by the accused and corroborated by the record B of school union council/municipal committee and NADRA were forged or those were managed/manoeuvred. As far as plea of the petitioner before this Court that according to ossification test report, the accused were major at the time of alleged occurrence is concerned, it is consistent view of the superior courts of the country that whenever there is sufficient corroborative documentary evidence regarding age of the accused, the report of ossification test report is merely an expert opinion C and that cannot override the documentary proof, particularly when the same is incorporated much prior to the occurrence. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed on the radio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Intizar Hussain v.
Hamza Ameer and others (2017 SCMR 633). Moreover , it is also practice of superior courts of the country that in the presence of birth certificate, which; was got incorporated in the relevant record promptly , it shall be domineering over any other piece of evidence. This principle was laid down in a salutary judgment handed down by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Nazeer alias W azeer v . The State ( PLD 2007 SC 202 ).
4. If for the sake of arguments the plea of the petitioner (complainant of the FIR) that according to ossification test reports the ages of the accused were declared 18 to 21 years, is taken as correct, it is also an admitted fact that documentary evidence in the shape of school record, municipal committee/un ion council record, as well as, NADRA record available on record unveils that they were 'Juvenile' at the time of occurrence and authenticity of these documents was not questioned by the petitioner either before the learned trial court nor even before this Court. It is cardinal principle of law that whenever two views relating to the age of accused are possible, the view in favour of the accused is normally accepted. This principle was also held in the case of Ijaz Hussain v. The State (2002 SCMR 1455 ).
5. Having taking into consideration all the afore-stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that order passed by the learned trial court declaring the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 5 as Juvenile in terms of Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 being in accordance with principles governing the subject, is fully justified. Hence, the instant petition being devoid of IG legal justifi cation is hereby dismissed . As the case pertains to the year 2016, learne d trial court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same at an early date.