This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 17-6-2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad by which he had declared the accused/respondent No.2 as a 'juvenile' and had dismissed the application of the complainant/petitioner for getting the age of the accused determined through a Medical Board.
2. The brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. No.28 was got registered on 7-1-2001 by the complainant under section 302, P.P.C, in Police Station, Pindi Bhattian and the case is now pending before the learned Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court set up under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, Hafizabad against Shamim alias Shamun respondent No.2. On 17-6-2002, the petitioner/complainant filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad that during the occurrence his real son Mazhar Hussain had been killed and that during the course of investigation, in collusion with the police the complainant party, had got entered the age of the accused as less than 18 years while actually he was more than 18 years of age and was major at the time of occurrence. It was prayed by him that age of the accused be got determined through a Medical Board. After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, vide his order, dated 17-6-2002 dismissed the said application and declared the accused to be a 'juvenile'.
Aggrieved of the said order the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The question to be decided here is as to whether under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, it is mandatory to refer the matter to the Medical Board for the determination of age of an accused person. Before adverting to the main question, it may be mentioned here that in his application submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, Ahmed Than complainant/petitioner had not taken the plea that the School Leaving Certificate relied upon by the accused in which his date of birth is mentioned as 5-9-1987 was a fraudulent and bogus document. In fact, the complainant/petitioner had not challenged the genuineness and validity of the said document before the learned trial Court and had merely averred in his application that the accused party in connivance with the police had got entered the age of the accused as less than 18 years in the course of investigation while actually he was more than 18 years of age.
5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, a Juvenile Court can decide whether an accused person is a child' or not only on the basis of unimpeachable documentary evidence and after obtaining the medical opinion. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on 2001 PCr.LJ 1939 (Lahore) (Hassan Zafar v. The State) and 2001 M LD 1191 (Ahmed Ali v. The State).
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the cases reported as 2002 SCM R 440 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) (Muhammad Ishaque v. Muhammad and another) and 2002 PCr.LJ 633 (Lahore) (Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem) and has argued that such an exercise is to be resorted to only when there is no other proof available such as school leaving certificate or a birth certificate and when the question regarding age of the accused cannot be answered on the basis of documents available on record. He has further argued that as the complainant had not challenged the validity of the document available on record, before the trial Court, the prayer for getting the age of the accused determined through a Medical Board was without any basis. He has argued that in his application filed before the learned trial Court the complainant had not raised any objection whatsoever about the validity or genuineness of the document relied upon by the accused respondent No.2 i.e. The school leaving certificate and hence his request for referring the matter to the Medical Board for determination of the age of accused/respondent No.2 is without any legal basis.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments.
8. It was held in 2002 PCr.LJ 633 (Lahore) that provisions of section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 are not to be invoked in each and every case mechanically, rather it is only where a question with respect to the age of an accused person cannot be answered through any documentary evidence that an inquiry is called for under the said law. It was also held in the same authority that an Ossification Test could only give a clue as to the age but could not be a conclusive proof and that such an exercise has to be resorted only when there was no other proof available like the School Leaving Certificate or the Birth Certificate and the Court was in a quandry about the age of the accused and when the matter is referred for Ossification Test, a margin had to be given to the Doctor's opinion as the same was not absolute. It was held in 2002 SCM R 440 that where the complainant had not challenged the genuineness and validity of the documents (before the trial Court) the mere assertion of the complainant before the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the date o: birth of the accused as mentioned in the Certificate was not correct, had no force and the view taken by the High Court that unless the said documents were held to be fraudulent or bogus, they were to be relied upon, was proper in the circumstances.
9. In this case also, the petitioner/complainant had not challenged the genuineness and the validity of the School Leaving Certificate of the accused/respondent No.2 either before the learned trial Court or even before this Court. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge/the Juvenile Court, Hafizabad does not appear to be perverse fanciful or against any provision of law. As such there is no justification for interference in exercise of revision. Jurisdiction of, this Court. The Revisions petition is accordingly dismissed.