Juvenile | if the dates are different on school certificate and birth-certificate

تعارف

پاکستان کے فوجداری نظامِ انصاف میں نابالغ ملزم کے تعین کو غیر معمولی اہمیت حاصل ہے، کیونکہ نابالغ کو قانون کے تحت بالغ ملزم سے مختلف تحفظات اور طریقۂ کار میسر ہوتے ہیں۔ زیرِ بحث عدالتی فیصلے میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اس نکتے کا تفصیلی جائزہ لیا کہ جب تاریخِ پیدائش سے متعلق مختلف دستاویزات میں تضاد ہو تو کس دستاویز کو فوقیت دی جائے گی۔

نابالغ کے تعین کا قانونی پس منظر

نابالغ کے تعین سے متعلق موجودہ قانون Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 ہے، جس کے تحت سب سے پہلے دستاویزی شواہد کی بنیاد پر عمر کا تعین کیا جاتا ہے۔ اگر مستند دستاویزات دستیاب ہوں تو طبی معائنہ یا اوسیفیکیشن ٹیسٹ کی ضرورت باقی نہیں رہتی۔ اس قانون کا مقصد نابالغ کے حقوق کا تحفظ اور غیر ضروری سزاؤں سے بچاؤ ہے۔

فارم ب اور پیدائش کے سرٹیفکیٹ کی حیثیت

عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ نادرا کی جانب سے جاری کردہ فارم ب اور یونین کونسل کا پیدائش کا سرٹیفکیٹ عوامی دستاویزات ہیں۔ یہ دستاویزات سرکاری ریکارڈ کا حصہ ہوتی ہیں اور عام طور پر ان پر انحصار کیا جاتا ہے، خصوصاً جب یہ وقوعہ سے بہت پہلے جاری کی گئی ہوں۔ ایسے میں ان کی قانونی حیثیت مضبوط سمجھی جاتی ہے۔

اسکول سرٹیفکیٹ کی قانونی اہمیت

عدالت کے مطابق نجی اسکول کی جانب سے جاری کردہ اسکول لیونگ سرٹیفکیٹ کی حیثیت عوامی دستاویز کے برابر نہیں ہوتی۔ مزید یہ کہ اگر اسکول سرٹیفکیٹ میں نام، تاریخ یا دیگر کوائف میں شبہ یا ابہام پایا جائے تو اس پر مکمل انحصار نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ اس کیس میں اسکول سرٹیفکیٹ نہ صرف نجی ادارے کا تھا بلکہ نام کے اختلاف اور تعلیمی مدت کے غیر معمولی پہلوؤں نے اس کی ساکھ کو مزید کمزور کر دیا۔

متضاد دستاویزات میں فائدہ کس کو دیا جائے گا

لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اس اصول کو دہرایا کہ جب عمر سے متعلق دستاویزات میں تضاد ہو اور معتبر سرکاری ریکارڈ موجود ہو تو نابالغ کو فائدہ دیا جائے گا۔ فوجداری قانون میں یہ تسلیم شدہ اصول ہے کہ شبہ کی صورت میں ملزم کو فائدہ پہنچایا جائے، خصوصاً جب معاملہ نابالغ ہونے یا نہ ہونے سے متعلق ہو۔

اوسیفیکیشن ٹیسٹ کی ضرورت کا سوال

عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ اوسیفیکیشن ٹیسٹ صرف اسی صورت میں کیا جاتا ہے جب عمر سے متعلق کوئی مستند دستاویزی ثبوت موجود نہ ہو۔ چونکہ اس کیس میں فارم ب اور پیدائش کا سرٹیفکیٹ دستیاب تھے، اس لیے طبی معائنہ ضروری نہیں سمجھا گیا۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی نشاندہی کی کہ طبی معائنہ عمر میں ایک سے دو سال کے فرق کا امکان رکھتا ہے، اس لیے اسے آخری ذریعہ تصور کیا جاتا ہے۔

دیر سے نابالغ ہونے کا دعویٰ

یہ اعتراض بھی اٹھایا گیا کہ ملزم نے نابالغ ہونے کا دعویٰ دیر سے کیا، تاہم عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگر تفتیشی افسر، پولیس یا مجسٹریٹ نے ابتدائی مرحلے پر قانونی تقاضے پورے نہ کیے ہوں تو محض تاخیر نابالغ کے حق کو ختم نہیں کرتی۔ ٹرائل کے دوران بھی نابالغ ہونے کا دعویٰ قابلِ سماعت رہتا ہے۔

نتیجہ

لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے یہ اصول مستحکم کر دیا کہ عمر کے تعین میں سرکاری دستاویزات کو فوقیت حاصل ہے اور نجی دستاویزات اس وقت تک قابلِ ترجیح نہیں ہوتیں جب تک وہ غیر متنازع اور مضبوط شواہد پر مبنی نہ ہوں۔ چنانچہ متضاد تاریخِ پیدائش کی صورت میں فارم ب اور پیدائش کے سرٹیفکیٹ کی بنیاد پر ملزم کو نابالغ قرار دینا قانون اور انصاف کے عین مطابق ہے، اور ایسے مقدمات کا ٹرائل نابالغ عدالت میں ہی ہونا چاہیے۔

یہ عدالتی فیصلہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے جج محمد طارق ندیم نے 22 مئی 2024 کو سنایا۔ مقدمے میں درخواست گزار عمران حیدر نے ریاست اور ایک اور کے خلاف مجرمانہ نظرثانی کی درخواست دائر کی تھی۔ درخواست میں کہا گیا کہ عدالت نے محمد حسین (جو کہ مقدمے میں جواب دہندہ نمبر 2 ہیں) کو نابالغ قرار دینے کا حکم دیا ہے، حالانکہ اس کے عمر کے حوالے سے متضاد دستاویزات موجود ہیں۔

فیصلے میں عدالت نے کہا کہ محمد حسین کی تاریخ پیدائش کے حوالے سے فارم بی اور پیدائش کے سرٹیفکیٹ کی بنیاد پر اسے نابالغ قرار دینا صحیح تھا، جبکہ اسکول کے سرٹیفکیٹ کی حیثیت کمزور تھی۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ جب متضاد دستاویزات موجود ہوں تو عام طور پر نابالغ کو فائدہ دیا جاتا ہے۔

فیصلے میں مزید کہا گیا کہ اگرچہ مدعا علیہ نے مقدمے کی کارروائی کے دوران نابالغ ہونے کا دعویٰ دیر سے کیا، لیکن یہ دلیل کافی نہیں ہے کہ درخواست کو مسترد کیا جائے۔ عدالت نے فیصلہ سنایا کہ مقدمے کا ٹرائل نابالغ عدالت میں ہونا چاہیے اور درخواست گزار کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔

Must read Judgement

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

(Imran Haider vs. The State and another)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: -

22-05-2024

Petitioner by: -

Mr. Farrukh Gulzar Awan, Advocate.

State by: -

Mr. Muhammad Moin Ali, Deputy

Prosecutor General

Complainant by: -

M/s Mehram Ali Bali and Fahad Javed

Qureshi, Advocates

Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.:- Through this criminal

revision filed under Section 436 read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. the

petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot, District Jhang, whereby

an application filed by Muhammad Hussain (respondent No. 2) for

declaring him juvenile in case FIR No.189 dated 27.05.2023, for an

offence under section 363 PPC (later on sections 302, 375-A and 34

PPC were also added during the course of investigation), registered at

Police Station Shorkot Cantt. District Jhang, was allowed and he was

declared a „Juvenile‟ for the purpose of his trial in the abovementioned case.

The synopsis of the case gleaned out from the crime report are

that Imran Haider petitioner was resident of Chak No.5 Ghagh, Tehsil

Shorkot, District Jhang, and shopkeeper by profession. On 26.05.2023

at about 07.00 p.m. when petitioner‟s son namely Hassan Raza, aged

about 14 years, went outside the house after changing clothes,

Muhammad Husnain respondent No. 2 and his co-accused forcibly

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

took him on motorcycle and when his son did not come back, he

became worried. The PWs namely Muhammad Husnain and Abid Ali

told the complainant that his son was kidnapped by Muhammad

Hussain respondent No. 2 and his co-accused Asim Ali. The petitioner

further maintained in crime report that his son be recovered after

arresting the accused.

Initially the crime report was lodged against respondent No.2

and his co-accused namely Asim Ali for an offence under section 363

PPC. After the arrest of accused, they pointed out the place of murder

of Hassan Raza and subsequently his dead body was also recovered

by Rescue 1122 Khanewal. During investigation, respondent No.2 and

his co-accused also disclosed and pointed out the place where they

committed sodomy with Hassan Raza (deceased). Accordingly, the

investigating officer added sections 302, 375-A and 34 PPC in this

case.

After submission of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. charge

was framed by the trial court on 16.10.2023 and thereafter on

02.11.2023, respondent No.2 filed an application for declaring him

„Juvenile‟ in the aforementioned case which was allowed by the trial

court vide impugned order dated 30.11.2023. Hence, this case.

It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the trial court has aired the impugned order on wrong premises of

law; that according to School Leaving Certificate issued by the

Principal, Khurram Memorial Girls High School (registered),

Azadpur, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang, the date of birth of

respondent No.2 is 01.01.2004, in this way, he was major at the time

of occurrence; that Form-B issued by NADRA, wherein the date of

birth of respondent No.2 has been shown as 20.05.2006, is not a valid

document but the trial court has wrongly relied upon the same; that in

the presence of conflicting documents qua the age of respondent No.2,

it was the duty of trial court to issue a direction for his ossification

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

test. To embellish his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance upon the case-laws titled as Muhammad Anwar vs.

Muhammad Sufiyan and another (2009 SCMR 1073), Oam Parkash

vs. The State of Rajistan and another (2012 SCMR 1400), Sultan

Ahmad vs. ASJ-I, Mianwali and two others (PLD 2014 Supreme

Court 758) and Saleem Khan vs. The State and others (PLD 2020

Supreme Court 356).

Contrarily, learned counsel for respondent No.2 emphatically

argued that Form-B issued by NADRA is a public document, wherein

the date of birth of respondent No.2 is mentioned as 20.05.2006.

Further argued that the School Leaving Certificate produced by the

petitioner before the trial court was issued by a private school,

therefore, it has no value in the presence of Form-B issued by

NADRA.

Similarly, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has submitted

that the trial court has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order after

applying its sagacious and judicial mind which needs no interference

by this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, anxiously

considered their arguments and perused the record with their able

assistance.

The main thrust of arguments advanced by learned counsel for

the petitioner is that there are two conflicting documents qua the date

of birth of Muhammad Hussain (respondent No.2), for the reason, it

was incumbent upon the trial court to issue a direction for his

ossification test. However, I am not in agreement with this contention

because conducting the ossification test of an accused for the purpose

of determination of his age as a juvenile offender or otherwise was

necessary under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance,

2000 (now repealed), which is reproduced as infra for the purpose of

facilitation:-

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

Section 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.

On 24.05.2018, Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, was

promulgated and Section 8 of the Act ibid deals with the procedure for

declaring any accused as juvenile which reads as under:-

8. Determination of age. ---(1) Where a person alleged to have

committed an offence physically appears or claims to be a juvenile

for the purpose of this Act, the officer-in-charge of the police

station or the investigation officer shall make an inquiry to

determine the age of such person on the basis of his birth

certificate, educational certificates or any other pertinent

documents. In absence of such documents, age of such accused

person may be determined on the basis of a medical examination

report by a medical officer.

(2) When an accused person who physically appears to be a

juvenile for the purpose of this Act is brought before a Court under

section 167 of the Code, the Court before granting further

detention shall record its findings regarding age on the basis of

available record including the report submitted by the police or

medical examination report by a medical officer.

Besides, Sections 2(b), 2(h), 4(7) and 16 of the Act ibid are also

relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case, which are

reproduced hereunder:-

2. Definitions. ---In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in

the subject or context: -

(a) …………………………………………………………………..

(b) "child" means for the purposes of this Act a person who has not

attained the age of eighteen years;

(d) …………………………………………………………………..

(e) …………………………………………………………………..

(f) …………………………………………………………………..

(g) …………………………………………………………………..

(h) "juvenile' means, a child who may be dealt with for an offence

in a manner which is different from an adult;

4. Juvenile Court. ---

(1) …………………………………………………………………..

(2) …………………………………………………………………..

(3) …………………………………………………………………..

(4) …………………………………………………………………..

(5) …………………………………………………………………..

(6) …………………………………………………………………..

(7) If any court taking cognizance of an offence finds that an

accused brought before it is a juvenile, it shall transfer his case to

the Juvenile Court for further proceedings.

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

16. Orders that shall not be passed with respect to a juvenile.---

(1) No person who was a juvenile offender at the time of

commission of an offence shall be awarded punishment of death.

(2) No juvenile offender shall be committed to prison, ordered to

labour, put in fetters, handcuffed or given any corporeal

punishment at any time while in custody:

Provided that if there is reasonable apprehension of the escape of

the juvenile offender from custody who is more than sixteen years

of age and involved in heinous offence or he is previously

convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life, for

reasons to be recorded, he may be handcuffed or put into a solitary

confinement in a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre or observation

home for a period not exceeding twenty-four hours.

A comparative study of the above mentioned provisions of law

has made it abundantly clear that in terms of Section 7 of the repealed

Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, medical report qua the

determination of age was necessary, but Section 8 of the Juvenile

Justice System Act, 2018, contemplates that where an accused

physically appears to be a juvenile or he claims himself to be a

juvenile, the officer in-charge of the police station or the investigating

officer shall make an inquiry for the determination of his age on the

basis of birth certificate, educational certificates or any other pertinent

documents and in the absence of such documents, age of accused

should be determined on the basis of his medical examination vice

versa when an accused, who appears to be a juvenile, is brought

before a court under section 167, Cr.P.C. the court before granting his

further detention shall record its findings regarding his age on the

basis of available record submitted by the police or medical

examination report. It may not be out of place to mention here that

investigating officer has written the age of respondent No. 2 in the

certificate of identification annexed with report under section 173,

Cr.P.C. as 18/19 years but no inquiry was conducted for the

determination of his age by the officer in-charge of the police station

or the investigating officer as well as by learned Magistrate. In this

way, they all have failed to perform their legal obligation in this case.

It has been well settled by now that if a thing is required to be done in

a particular manner, then the same should be done in that very manner

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

and not otherwise. Wisdom can be derived from the case-laws tilted as

Manzoor Hussain vs. The State and 8 others (2013 P.Cr.L.J. 18),

Nasreen Akhtar vs. Mian Abbas, SHO and 7 others (2016 P.Cr.L.J.

578), Zahida Parveen alias Gooma and another vs. The State and

others (2019 P.Cr.L.J. 1491) and Adil Khan vs. The State and

another (2020 P.Cr.L.J. 729).

It is worthwhile noticeable here that in the present case, the

petitioner has entirely relied upon a school leaving certificate for

determination of age of respondent No.2, but learned counsel for the

petitioner could not satisfy this Court that how the school leaving

certificate which was got issued from a private school i.e. Khurram

Memorial Girls High School Azadpur, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang,

can be given preference over Form-B, which has been issued by

NADRA in favour of respondent No.2 much prior to the happening of

incident.

Another important aspect of this case which cannot be lost sight

of is that the school leaving certificate produced by learned counsel

for the petitioner before the trial court is pertaining to one Muhammad

Husnain son of Muhammad Waheed but in the instant case the name

of accused is Muhammad Hussain son of Muhammad Waheed. For

clarity, this Court vide order dated 20.05.2024 called for the judicial

record of the trial court, which has been produced today and after

going through the judicial record, it can be easily adjudged that the

name of student mentioned in the school leaving certificate is

Muhammad Husnain and not Muhammad Hussain (respondent No.2).

Another fact which raises a serious question about the authenticity of

school leaving certificate is that according to this document,

Muhammad Husnain son of Muhammad Waheed got admission in

Khurram Memorial Girls High School Azadpur, Tehsil Shorkot,

District Jhang, on 29.10.2008 as a student of nursery class and he

remained studying there till 31.03.2013 i.e. for a period of four years

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

five months and two days but he could pass only class one during this

long span of time.

In the light of above-noted peculiar facts and circumstances of

this case, school leaving certificate relied upon by the petitioner for

determination of age of respondent No.2 cannot be said to have

contradicted Form-B, which is a public document and has been issued

in latter‟s favour by NADRA. More so, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon the case-law titled as Saleem Khan vs. The

State and others (PLD 2020 SC 356) wherein the Supreme Court of

Pakistan has held that ossification test/medical report should be called

only in the absence of documentary evidence or contradiction between

the documents. In this way, wisdom laid down by the Supreme Court

of Pakistan in the above-referred case also goes against the petitioner.

In addition to the above, judicial record of the trial court

relating to juvenility depicts that respondent No.2 had also produced

his birth certificate issued by Secretary Union Council Ahmad Pur

East, District Bahawalpur, along with his Form-B issued by NADRA

which both are public documents and in these documents, his date of

birth is mentioned as 20.05.2006. I am of the view that medical report

was necessary in terms of Section 7 of the repealed Juvenile Justice

System Ordinance, 2000, but in Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice

System Act, 2018, it has been mentioned that in absence of

documentary evidence about the age of accused person, it may be

determined on the basis of medical examination report by a medical

officer, but when there is documentary evidence pertaining to the age

of respondent No.2 then no question arises to send him for ossification

test, which even otherwise, normally varies one to two years of the

age of examinee. A reference in this respect may be made to the case

titled as Intizar Hussain vs. Hamza Ameer, etc. (2017 SCMR 633)

wherein the Apex Court of the country has held as under:-

"۶۔ اہجں کت اعمنیجل وصخیص یک روپرٹ اک قلعت ےہ وہ امرہ ای امرہنی یک راےئ رپ لمتشم ےہ سج وک

اقونن ےک رموہج اوصولں ےک تحت رحف آرخ ای یمتح مس ں اج اھ کس یک ا ہکن X-Rayینعی ربانقیسیط اعشوعں

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

ےک ذرےعی ڈہویں ےک سکع یک اینبد رپ یبط امرہ/امرہنی وس دصیف یطلغ ےس اپک اور یمتح راےئ ااسنین رمع ےکقلعتم

، زی اسل ای مک ےس مک اکی اسل کت یمک یشیب اک اامتحل راتہ ےہ ۲ مس ں دے ےتکس ہکن اس ںیم زایدہ ےس زایدہ

ربانقیسیط اعشوعں ےک ذرےعی سکع ےنیل وایل نیشم یک استخ اور اس یک درتس اکررکدیگ یھب امہرے کلم ںیم

اکی وساہیل اشنن ہشیمہ راتہ ےہ اور ان رپ اقمئ رکدہ راےئ ادنازوں رپ ینبم وہیت ےہ ذہلا اس وک رہزگ یعطق مس ں اج اھ

رسٹ ی فی کی ٹ ایررٹسجداہلخںیموجاترخیدیپاشئدرجیککسیت کس یک ا۔ ارگہچ اس ےک اقمےلب ںیم ضحم وکسل ےک

ےہ وک یھب ارفنادی وطر رپ یمتح اور اناقِلب رد مس ں اج اھ کس یک ا۔ دقمہم ذہا ںیم وچ وینین وکلسن ےک دیپاشئ

ات وج ےس قلعتم ررٹسجاور افرم )ب( وج ہک اندرا ےک وفحمظ دشہ ایدداتش اک ہصح ےہ۔ دوونں رساکری داتسوزی

ہکووقعےسیئکاسلےلہپاِنںیماترخیدیپاشئزلممیکدرجیکیئگےہ۔وکسلےکررٹسجںیمدرجاترخی

دیپاشئ زلمم یک لمکم اور وپری اتدیئ رکیت ےہ سج وک رصف وبضمط اہشدت ےک ذرےعی یہ رد ایک کس یک ا ےہ نکیل

یسک اور مسق یک اہشدت وموجد ہن ےہ۔ سج وک دنمرہج لثم دقمہم رپ اموساےئ ذموکرہ یبط امرہنی یک راےئ ےک العوہ

" ابال رساکری ایدداتش وک ردرکےن ےک ےیل اکیف اج اھ کسےئ۔

In the light of above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view

that in the case in hand when respondent No.2 has produced two

authentic documents i.e. Form-B issued by NADRA and Birth

Certificate, then these documents should be given preference over the

school leaving certificate issued by a private school and produced by

the petitioner. The question of juvenility should be firstly decided in

the light of documentary evidence and only in the absence of such

documents, controversy of age can be resolved through ossification

test.

10. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner

that respondent No.2 filed application for declaring him a „Juvenile‟ at

a belated stage and the trial court has ignored this fact is concerned, I

am of the considered view that this contention has no force because in

this case, neither the Station House Officer nor the Investigating

Officer or learned Area Magistrate have acted in accordance with law.

Mere fact that respondent No.2 did not claim himself to be a juvenile

during the process of investigation as well as before the Area

Magistrate, is not a valid ground to oust him from claiming the relief

before the trial court at the time of his trial. The record evinces that

after framing of charge on 16.10.2023, respondent No.2 submitted

application before the trial court on 02.11.2023 for declaring him

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

juvenile, therefore, the trial court was quite competent to entertain and

decide the application of respondent No.2. In the case-law tilted as

Saleem Khan vs. The State and others (PLD 2020 SC 356), the

Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to hold as infra:-

“5. The determination of the age or juvenility of the accused

under the Juvenile Ordinance was the responsibility of the

trial court, requiring the trial court to hold an inquiry

including obtaining a medical report for the determination of

age. However, this process underwent change under section 8

of the Juvenile Act, wherein if the accused physically appears

or claims to be a juvenile, the Police shall make an inquiry to

determine the age of the accused on the basis of his birth

certificate, educational certificate or any other pertinent

document. In the absence of such documents, age of such

accused person may be determined on the basis of a medical

examination report by a medical officer. Therefore, the Police

are to determine the juvenility of the accused and thereafter

the case is put up before the Juvenile Court for trial. Section

8(2) provides that if the accused physically appears to be a

juvenile when brought before a court (of general criminal

jurisdiction) under section 167 Cr.P.C the court shall before

granting further detention record its finding regarding age of

the accused. Section 4(7) of the Juvenile Act provides that a

criminal court of general jurisdiction can find the accused to

be a juvenile and thereafter transfer the case to the juvenile

court for further proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of any

inquiry by the Police the determination of age and juvenility

of the accused can be determined by the court having taken

cognizance of the matter. This is what happened in the instant

case, when the court declared the petitioner to be a juvenile

on the application of the petitioner.

6. Determination of age of an accused who appears or claims

to be a juvenile is, therefore, initially the statutory

responsibility of the Police. In the absence of which, the court

of general jurisdiction enjoys the power to determine the age

of the accused, and if declared to be a juvenile, transfer the

case to the concerned Juvenile Court. In the instant case, the

Police had not carried out any such exercise and therefore the

court on the application of the petitioner issued the required

declaration. The determination of age by the court is also a

statutory obligation, hence the time spent in obtaining the said

finding or declaration by the court cannot possibly be termed

as delay caused in the trial by the accused, so as to deprive

him of his right to bail on the ground of statutory delay. Any

such determination of age by the court is a statutory

requirement and forms part of the trial.”

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued on the point

that birth certificate or Form-B issued by NADRA and produced by

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

respondent No.2 before the trial court are forged documents. I have

observed that according to birth certificate of Muhammad Hussain

(respondent No.2) his date of birth is 20.05.2006 which was got

entered in the record of Union Council Ahmad Pur East, District

Bahawalpur on 30.05.2006, i.e. after ten days of his birth. Similarly,

his Form-B was issued by NADRA on 03.10.2016 whereas the

incident in the present case took place on 26.05.2023. Both the above

mentioned documents are of much prior to the date of occurrence.

Furthermore, even if it is presumed that there are contradictory

documents qua the age of respondent No.2, i.e. birth certificate,

Form-B issued by NADRA in favor of respondent No.2 and the

school leaving certificate relied upon by petitioner, famous principle

of criminal jurisdiction that in case where two views relating to the

age of accused are possible, the view in favour of the accused is

normally to be accepted as observed in the case-law reported as

Muhammad Zubair vs. The State (2010 SCMR 182) comes to rescue

the accused/respondent No.2. Relevant lines from the esteemed

judgment are reproduced as under for ready reference:-

“Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is a doubt in

respect of the age of the appellant because according to him

he was about 18 years of age whereas according to the

complainant he was 20 years of age at the time of incident. In

such a situation, it is to be seen as to whether doubt is to be

decided in favour of the accused or the complainant. A

similar question was examined by this Court in the case of

“Ijaz Hussain vs. The State” 2002 SCMR 1455 and it after

relying upon the case of “Umar Hayat v. Jahangir 2002

SCMR 629 held that “in case where two views relating to

the age of accused are possible, the view in favour of the

accused is normally to be accepted. In the case of Sohail

Iqbal v. the State 1993 SCMR 2377 it has been held as

under:-

In view of discrepancy in recording the age of

appellant it is only fair that the benefits should

be extended to him particularly in view of the

precedent of this Court quoted by the learned

counsel for the appellant i.e. Javed Iqbal v. The

State 1982 SCMR 447. ”

Criminal Revision No. 83203 of 2023

12. Other judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are

not applicable in this case because most of the case-laws are

pertaining to repealed Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

13. As a natural corollary of above discussion, this Court has

reached an irresistible conclusion that the trial court has passed a wellreasoned and speaking order after applying its judicial mind which

needs no interference by this Court. Resultantly, instant criminal

revision is hereby dismissed.

14. Office is directed to send back the record of the trial court

immediately.

(MUHAMMAD TARIQ NADEEM)

Judge

Approved for reporting

JUDGE

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.