ADEEL HASSAN vs THE STATE and another
This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application to be treated as a juvenile in a murder and attempt to murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The Lahore High Court accepted the medical age determination report from Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital, which established that the bone age of the petitioner was around 19 years on the date of examination in April 2007, making him less than 18 years of age on the date of the occurrence in February 2006. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and held that the petitioner falls within the definition of a child under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and must be tried by a Juvenile Court.
- Whether an accused person whose bone age is determined to be around 19 years approximately fourteen months after the occurrence qualifies as a child under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
- Can a trial court determine the age of an accused claiming to be a juvenile solely on ocular appearance when medical and hospital reports are available?
- Whether an accused who was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offence is entitled to be tried by a Juvenile Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Through this criminal revision the petitioner challenges the order, dated 1-7- 2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he turned down petitioner's application for being treated as a juvenile wherein the petitioner, who is facing trial in case F.I.R.
No,118 of 2006, dated 12-2-2006, registered with Police Station Saddar Mandi Bahauddin under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C. Along with two other co-accused in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin.
2. During the course of trial the petitioner moved an application before the learned trial Court wherein he submitted that on the date of occurrence i.e, 12-2-2006 he was 16 years of age; that as such he was a child within the meaning of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and needed to be tried by the Juvenile Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge referred the petitioner to the Medical Superintendent for the determination of his age. The Medical Board opined that he was more than 20 years of age. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order, dated 1-7-2006 inter alia observed as under:-- "Now, the ossification report sent by the doctor is left. So far as the report, according to the doctor accused Adeel is more than 16 years and less than 20 years. The Court has left no option other than to ascertain the age of the accused by his appearance. The accused Adeel is present in Court. By his appearance the accused does not look like a minor. He is well-built, matured and having moustaches and apparently look like more than 18 years. Therefore, the petition has no force and substance and is hereby dismissed."
3. It is the aforesaid order, dated 1-7-2006, which has been impugned through this criminal revision before this Court.
4. I had issued pre-admission notice to Javed Iqbal/complainant (respondent No,2) on 13-7-2006.
Mr. M.M. Alam Chaudhry, Advocate had appeared for respondent No,2 in response to the said pre- admission notice.
5. The case finally came up for arguments on 5-4-2007. On the said date the following order was passed by this Court:-- "After addressing lengthy arguments in support of their respective claims, the learned counsel for the parties have reached a consensus. They agree that the petitioner may be referred to Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital, Lahore for determination of his age. Expenses for this exercise shall be borne by the petitioner. The petitioner shall present himself before the Administrator Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital, Lahore on or before 10th of April, 2007. The Hospital Authorities shall determine the age of the petitioner and send a report to this Court through its Deputy Registrar (Judicial) preferably within seven days of the date on which the petitioner presents himself in the hospital. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General does not object to this course of action.
' Relist on 24-4-2007. Copy of this order shall be provided to the petitioner today."
6. The report has been received from Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital, Lahore, where the petitioner had been examined on 13-4-2007. The report submitted by the hospital reads as under:-- "Bone age by the standards of G&P is around 19 years with a standard deviation of + / =14.2 months."
7. The occurrence in the case had admittedly taken place on 12-2-2(106 whereas date of examination by the hospital is 13-4-2007. ' 'Thus, it would appear that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age on the day of occurrence. According to the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, child is a person who at the time of commission of an offence had not attained the age of 18 years.
When confronted with the report, Mr. M.M. Alam Chaudhry, the learned counsel for respondent No,2 frankly conceded that there is no option but to refer the trial of the petitioner to a Juvenile Court as established under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
8. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 1-7-2006, is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner will be tried by Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 as established under the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
' There will be no order as to costs.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR vs The STATE and others 2014 P Cr. L J 1680
- ASADULLAH alias SHAKIRULLAH vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 1022