1. This judgment will ,dispose of Criminal Revision No,538 of 2002 filed by Alam Sher Khan against the order dated 8-6-2002 whereby the application moved by Javed Akhtar, respondent No,2 for trial of the case according to Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, was accepted. This matter arises out of F.I.R. No,6 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Musa Khel District, Mianwali on 12-9-2001 for the murder of Muhammad Ilyas Khan.
2. In support of this revision petition, learned counsel submits that according to annexure A, the certificate of admission in the school, the .Date of birth of respondent accused was 12-4-1982. He has also referred to annexure B, the certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government High School Hathi Khan Wala stating that respondent Javed appeared in matriculation examination held in 1998 under Roll No,9495. In this certificate the age of respondent is given as 12-4-1982. Annexure C is Form issued by the Registration Authority according to which date of birth of respondent Javed is 12-4-1982. The next document referred to by . Learned counsel for the petitioner is electoral list issued by the Election Officer/Assistant Election Commissioner relating to year 2000-2001 to show that respondent No,2 was a registered voter. Learned counsel further submits that an inquiry was held and according to the inquiry report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the documents produced by the respondent accused were found to have been altered and erased. My attention has also been drawn to Article 128' of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, Ordinance. Learned counsel has relied upon 2002 SCM R 440, 2002 P.Cr.R 652, 2002 PCr.LJ 633 and PLJ 2002 (Cr.C.) 478.On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,2 submits that in fact the date of birth of respondent is 28-6-1984. In order to elaborate his submission, learned counsel submits that father of respondent No,2 was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Midwali and vide judgment dated 2-9-1978 sentenced to death but was acquitted in appeal by this Court on 29-3-1983, so in no case the date of birth of respondent No,2 can he 12-4-1982. Further submits that the impugned order of learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and no exception can be taken thereto. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon 2002 PCr.LJ 1939.
2. ' Learned counsel for the State supports the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and by referring to documents attached with the revision petition submits that in fact the date of birth of respondent No,2 is 12-4-1982.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents attached with the revision petition and also the precedents cited at the bar. Annexure A is the certificate issued by the Primary School showing date of birth of respondent, No,2 as 12-4-1982. Annexure B is also a certificate issued by the Headmaster of the High. School showing that respondent No,2 appeared in the matriculation examination of 1998 having date of birth as 12-4-1982. Then there is form issued by the Registration Authority according to which date of birth of respondent No,2 is 12-4-1982. Next isAnnexure D electoral list for the year 20002001 according to which the respondent is a registered voter. Further, according to report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the figures and words were erased and disfigured and it was difficult to give opinion that some alterations have been made or not. The judgment of conviction against father of the respondent and that of the acquittal of this Court in the year 1983 is not a conclusive proof that respondent No,2 was a less than 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. It is noteworthy that authenticity of the documents referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner has not been challenged by learned counsel for the respondent.
4. In the case of Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Nadeem and another (2002 SCM R 440) the High Court of Sindh observed that the birth certificate and the domicile certificate giving the date of birth of an accused has to be relied unless the same are held to be bogus or fraudulent. The petition for leave to appeal before the, Honourable Supreme Court was dismissed and the view taken-by the High Court was affirmed. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No,2 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. So far as opinion of the Board of Doctors holding the respondent No,2 as of about 18 years on 26-3-2002 is concerned, no reasoning have been given for coming to such a conclusion.
5. In view of what has been discussed above this revision petition is accepted and the order dated 8- 6-2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Mianwali is set aside.