Pakistan Case Law
2004 SCMR 121

MUHAMMAD ZAKIR vs THE STATE and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2004 SCMR 121
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No,454-L of 2002
Date2002-12-03
Judge(s)Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J. and Karamat Nazir Bhandari
Authored bySh. Riaz Ahmad
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's criminal revision. The core legal question concerned the determination of the petitioner's age for the purpose of claiming the status of a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, in a murder case registered under sections 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. While the petitioner relied on a birth certificate and school leaving certificate to assert minority, the trial court, following a High Court direction, relied on a medical board's ossification test report which assessed the petitioner's age as 20 years. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the revision, effectively affirming that the trial court correctly prioritized the medical board's findings over the documentary evidence presented by the petitioner. The judgment reinforces the principle that medical opinion, specifically ossification tests, serves as a critical, often decisive, evidentiary tool in determining the age of an accused when documentary proof is contested or deemed insufficient by the courts.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a medical board's ossification test report be preferred over a birth certificate for determining the age of an accused?
  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, require separate trial proceedings for an accused whose minority status is disputed and not established?
Laws & provisions referred
  • sections 302/109/34, P.P.C.
  • Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000
juvenile justiceage determinationossification testcriminal revisionminority statusmedical board report

' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 28-5-2002 passed in Criminal Revision No,463 of 2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner.

2. Facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner is an accusedin the case F.I.R. No, 322 registered on 27-8-2000 under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. The petitioner filed an application praying for separation of his trial and sending the same to the Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 claiming himself as a minor. The learned trial Court held that the petitioner is minor and ordered for separation of his trial.

3. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No,59 of 2000 before the Lahore High Court which was allowed and the order, dated 12-11-2001 was set aside with the direction to get the opinion of Medical Board to determine the age of the petitioner. The Medical Board vide its report, dated 19-3- 2002 held that the petitioner was of 20 years of age at the time of medical examination, therefore, in pursuance of the report of Medical Board the trial Court held that there is no need to conduct separate proceedings for the petitioner. The petitioner assailed the above order before the High Court in Civil Revision No,463 of 2002 which is impugned before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age at the time of occurrence according to the birth certificate produced by the petitioner.

He further stated that the trial Court had placed explicit reliance on the ossification test report and has totally ignored, the documents i.e, Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate.

5. In view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly dismissed the revision petition and no interference is called for by this Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave declined.

Cited by 16 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.