AMAN ULLAH vs The STATE and 2 others

ORDER

' SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, J.---Petitioner Aman Ullah son of Basharat Khan is complainant in case F.I.R. No, 50 of 2010 dated 3-5-2010 under sections 302, 34 and 109, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Noorpur District Khushab whereby respondent No, 2 Nasir Ali son of Fateh Sher along with his co- accused allegedly committed murder of Nazakat Hussain, Muhammad Farooq and Ghulam Abbas and challan against respondent No,2 and his co-accused was submitted in the trial Court.

Respondent No,2 claimed himself as child under 18 years of age, as defined under section 2-(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and moved all application for declaring as such. He also submitted his birth certificate wherein his date of birth was shown as 14-3-1993. The learned trial Court in view of the application submitted, conducted inquiry as required under section 7 of the Ordinance, ibid and during that inquiry respondent No, 2 submitted School Leaving Certificate and Form-B issued by NADRA. As there was conflict between date of birth given in the School Leaving Certificate, birth certificate as well as ossification test got conducted by the learned trial Court, therefore, the learned trial Court in order to determine the age of respondent No,2 recorded statement of Atta Ullah, Secretary Union Council No, 50 as C.W.1 who submitted birth certificate EXh.PA. Muhammad Nawaz, Headmaster, Primary School Dera Ghulam Ali Khan appeared as C.W.2 and submitted School Leaving Certificate Exh.PC, and learned trial Court also taken into consideration Form-B issued by NADRA (Exh.PD) and after keeping in view all these documents vide order dated 13-12-2010 preferring the birth certificate wherein date of birth was shown as 14-3-1993 found respondent No,2 on the alleged date of occurrence less than 17 years hence was declared as child and decided to conduct his trial under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. Feeling aggrieved petitioner-complainant has preferred this criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if ossification test is seen, respondent No, 2 is shown as 19/20 years of age; that there is a conflict between date of birth given in his School Leaving Certificate as well as birth certificate, therefore, preference must have been given to the ossification test. He relied on "MUHAMMAD ANWAR v. MUHAMMAD SUFFYIAN and another" (2009 SCM R 1073) and prayed that this revision petition be allowed and impugned order dated 3-12-2010 be set aside.

3. Conversely; learned counsel for respondent. No, 2 has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that the learned trial Court conducted a thorough inquiry recorded statement of two witnesses, who produced the original record in the court; that C.W.1 Atta Ullah, Secretary Union Council submitted original register and copy of birth certificate was placed on record as Exh.PA showing the date of birth of the respondent as 14-3-1993; that certificate by NADRA, if seen, the date of birth of the respondent is also shown as the same. As far as, the School Leaving Certificate is concerned; the date of birth of the petitioner was also shown as 14-3-1993.

4. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.

5. Admittedly, ossification test is opinion of the Radiologist on the basis of bone examination and it is consistently held that these are just opinions and it may vary from 6 months to 1 year either side but keeping in view the consistent record specially the date of birth given in the birth certificate as well as in the NADRA records, the respondent is found less than 17 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly held him as child. Resultantly, the impugned order is perfectly lawful and justified and does not require any interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this revision petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed.