' Altaf Hussain, the petitioner has brought the instant revision petition against the order, dated 28- 3-2003 recorded by Rao Akbar Ali, the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal whereby he has disposed of complainant's application for determination of his age with the observation that he was more than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident.
2. 'Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that one Zahoor Ahmad son of Fazal got registered the case F.I.R. No,16 on 24-10-2002, under section 302/109, P.P.C.
With Police Station Katcha Khuh, District Khanewal. He in the same accused the petitioner (Altaf Hussain) for the murder of his son Basharat Ali at the instance of his father Muhammad Nawaz. The police after investigation declared the said Muhammad Nawaz as innocent in that case. He (Zahoor Ahmad), thereafter filed private complaint under sections 302/109, P.P.C. Against both of them (petitioner and his father) before the Court of learned Ilaqa Magistrate. It was subsequently sent up to the Court of I the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal. The police in the case F.I.R. No,16, dated 24-10-2002 registered with Police Station Katcha Khuh, District Khanewal mentioned his (petitioner) age as 15/16 years. The complainant Zahoor Ahmad moved an application to the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal for determination of his age. He with that application appended copy of his birth entry in support of his assertion that he is an adult and not the child within the meaning assigned to the word in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner submitted reply to the application. He in the same prayed that the Medical Board for .The determination of his age may be constituted. He in support of his plea relied upon his Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan.
3. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties disposed of the complainant's application with the observation that he (petitioner) was more than 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident.
4. He feeling aggrieved of the same has come up with the instant revision petition.
5. It has been contended on his behalf that he was less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident and in support of the same, he has produced the copy of his Matriculation Certificate; that the said certificate is authentic proof of his age; that if the learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied with that certificate he should have ordered to constitute Medical Board for his examination for the purpose of determination of his age but it has not been done, and instead relied upon his birth entry produced by the complainant's side while it was not authentic proof of his age; and that his ossification test in such circumstances was necessary for determination of his age which has erroneously been refused and in these circumstances the impugned order is not sustainable in law. In support of his plea reliance has been placed upon the case of Hassan Zafar v.
The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1939 and Nazir 'Ahmad alias Kala v. District and Sessions Judge, Kasur and 2 others PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 195.
6. As against the same, the learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned order saying that the birth entry of the petitioner was the most authentic and reliable proof of his age as the same was got entered in the record of the Union Council concerned about 21 years age and at that time nobody could know that the same may be used for any such purpose subsequently; that there is no question of forgery of any kind in such old entry of birth of the petitioner and hence there was no need to constitute Medical Board for his examination for determination of his age; and that the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal has acted very rightly in observing that he was more than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident and disposed of complainant's application referred to above with such observation. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Hayat v. The State and another 2002 YLR 711 and Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem 2002 PCr.LJ 633.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
8. As said above, that the police have mentioned the age of the petitioner in the record of the case F.I.R. No,16, dated 24-10-2002, registered under sections 302/109, P.P.C., with Police Station Katcha Khuh, District Khanewal as 15/16 years. The mention of age by the A police normally is on saying of accused. It is often approximately mentioned from external appearance of accused. It is normally not exact age of accused. So, the mention of such age of the petitioner by the police was hardly of any material consequence in the case.
9. Any way, the dispute arose between the parties in respect of age of the petitioner from the same.
The complainant due to the same had thought of making an application for determination of his age asserting him to be an adult" and in support of his such assertion he has relied upon his birth entry. He has produced copy of his birth record issued by the Secretary, Union Council No,13, Chak No,4/8, A.R. Tehsil and District Khanewal on 3-9-2002. According to the same, his date of birth is 10- 12-1982. The incident as mentioned in the complaint brought by the complainant is dated 17-2- 2001. So from the same, his age was more than 18 years at that time. He in his reply to the aforementioned application of the complainant has asserted himself to be of less than 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident. He in this regard has relied upon his Annual Secondary School Examination Certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan. According to the same, his date of birth is 1-1-1984.
He in view of the same, in his reply prayed for constitution of the Medical Board for determination of his age. The learned Sessions Judge as said above did not agree to his submission in this behalf.
He proceeded to hold that he was more than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident in view of his birth entry produced by the side of the complainant.
10. It has been contended on his behalf that the constitution of the Medical Board for examination of his age was necessary to resolve the dispute in respect of his age and in support of the same reliance has been placed upon the case of Hassan Zafar v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1939 and Nazir Ahmad alias Kala v. District and Sessions Judge, Kasur and 2 others PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 195.
11. As against the same the State and the complainants' side have contended that the birth entry of the petitioner is most authentic and reliable proof of his age and hence, there was no need to constitute Medical Board for his examination or ossification test for determination of his age and hence the learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal has rightly did not accede to his request for that purpose.
12. The birth entry has been relied upon by the complainant's side as proof of his age. According to the same, he as mentioned above, was more than 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident i,e, 17-2-2001. This entry in respect of his age was got incorporated in the relevant record of the aforementioned Union Council on 26-2-1983. It thus was about 20 years age. It may also be mentioned here that no convincing reason has been advanced to show that such entry is forged or fabricated one. It is quite natural that at that time i,e, 20 years ago nobody could ever know that his such birth entry may be used for any such purpose as is being discussed here. So, it is the copy of authentic record in respect of his age. While it has also not been convincingly shown that it in any way is forged or fabricated one. So such record is more preferable in respect of the age of a person than any other including medical opinion. It can be said without hesitation that such opinion is always tentative or approximate estimation of one's age and never exact as compared to the birth record. The birth entry in the official record is more authentic proof of age of a person. There is almost consensus of opinion that Expert's opinion in respect of age can always vary either side i,e, upper or less to a certain extent and it never be with exactitude.
13. So when more authentic and reliable proof was available with the learned Sessions Judge in respect of the age of the petitioner, he then was right in not referring the matter for medical opinion in respect of the same. The similar view was taken in the case of Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem 2002 PCr.LJ 633 and Muhammad Hayat v. The State and another 2002 YLR 711. The view expressed in both these cases was latter in time than the one expressed by my learned brother Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary, J. In the case of Hassan Zafar v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1939 and Nazir Ahmad alias Kala v. District and Sessions Judge, Kasur and 2 others PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore)
195. As both these cases were decided on 11-6-2001 and 14-12-2001 respectively, while the one of Muhammad Hayat v. The State and another 2002 YLR 711 and Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem 2002 PCr.LJ 633 on 29-32002 and 16-1-2002 respectively.
14. In these circumstances, I find that the impugned order in no `way suffers from either any illegality or impropriety. Hence, no case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been made out. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.