Allah Pitta Versus The State Allah Pitta vs The State
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianchannu, which declared the accused, Sajjad Hussain, a juvenile offender in a case registered under Sections 301/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in declaring the accused a juvenile based on medical reports and school records, despite the petitioner's belated claim that the accused was an adult and misidentified. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the trial court correctly followed the procedure mandated by the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The Court observed that the petitioner had previously requested medical age determination, and both the District and Provincial Medical Boards consistently opined that the accused was under eighteen years of age. The Court affirmed that Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 requires the court to record findings based on an inquiry that includes a medical report. The principle laid down is that where a trial court has conducted a thorough inquiry and relied upon consistent medical evidence, its determination of juvenile status is legally sound and not subject to interference.
- Does Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 require a medical report for the determination of an accused's age?
- Can a complainant challenge the juvenile status of an accused after requesting medical age determination from a board?
- Is a trial court's finding on juvenile status based on consistent medical board reports legally sustainable?
- Section 301, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 7, Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
JUDGMENT MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J. - Through this revision, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 1.3.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianchannu, District Khanewal, whereby accused Sajjad Hussain alias Shada has been declared juvenile offender in case F.I.R. No. 415,. Dated 11.11.2006 registered at Police Station Saddar Mianchannu, District Khanewal under Sections 301/109/34, P.P.C.
2. After submission of challan in the afore-said case. Sajjad Hussain accused moved application for separate trial under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 being a minor. During the proceedings of that application, to petitioner/complainant requested the learned Trial Court that the matter be referred to District Medical Board for determination of age of the accused. According to his request, the matter was referred to the District Medical Board, Khanewal. The Board submitted its report that age of the accused was 15 to 16 years. Dissatisfied with report, the petitioner/complainant on 22.9.2007 moved another application for getting the age* of accused determined through Provincial Medical Board. His application was allowed and Provincial Medical Board was directed to submit their report regarding age of the accused. The said Board also submitted its report that age of the accused was between 16 to 17 years. Keeping in view the reports of District Medical Board and Provincial Medical Board as well as the school leaving certificate produced by the accused, he was declared juvenile at the time of occurrence and the investigating agency was directed to submit separate challan against him under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present revision has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that actual name of the accused is Irshad Hussain and not Sajjad Hussain and as per Union Council record, his date of birth is 3.11.1998 and as such on the day of occurrence, he was above 18 years. According to learned counsel, under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System. Ordinance, 2000 the learned Trial Court was required to conduct detailed inquiry for determination of age of the accused and should not have simply relied upon the reports of the Medical Boards. Learned counsel further contends that birth certificate of the accused should be given preference over the opinion of the Medical Board, In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sultan Ahmed v. Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mianwali and 2 others (PLD 2004 SC 758), Muhammad Hayat v. Muhammad Iqbal and 8 others (PLJ 2001 Cr.C.
(Lahore) 1013) and Muhammad Akram v, Muhammad Haleem (2002 P.Cr.L.J. 633).
4. . On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the revision and have contended that matter has been thoroughly probed into in the learned Trial Court and opinion of the Medical Boards were sought at petitioner's instance. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity.
5. I have given anxious through ot the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the file. Record shows that in the F.I.R, lodged by the petitioner/complainant, name and parentage of the accused has been recorded as Sajjad Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain, In report under Section 173, Cr.P.C, submitted by the Investigating Officer also, same name of the accused is mentioned in column No. 3. In school leaving certificate issued by Government Higher Secondary School, 105/15-L Vunjari, Tellsil Mianchannu, District Khanewal, also, the name of petitioner is mentioned as Sajjad Hussain and his date of birth is recorded as 4.4.1990. At the time of inquiry beings conducted by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner did not raise any objection that name of accused is Irshad Hussain, rather in his own application dated 22.9.2007, seeking re-examination of the accused by Provincial Medical Board, the name of the accused has been recorded as Sajjad alias Shada. Apart from the above, the matter has been referred to the District Medical Board as- well as Provincial Medical Board for determination of "age of the accused at petitioner's own request and both the Boards have consistently opined that the accused was below the age of 18 years. Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 provides that Juvenile Court shall record its finding after inquiry which shall include a medical report for determination of the age of accused. The learned Trial Court has fully complied with this provision of law and the impugned order passed by it does not suffer for any legal infirmity. Hence, the criminal revision having no merits is dismissed.