Mr. Shafqat Raza Thaheem vs Mr. Mehroz Aziz Khan Niazi
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which dismissed the petitioner's application to be declared a juvenile in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for juvenility without conducting the mandatory inquiry prescribed by law, particularly when the petitioner relied on NADRA records to assert he was under 18 at the time of the alleged occurrence. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable because the trial court failed to follow the procedural mandate of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter, directing the trial court to conduct a proper inquiry, including an ossification test, to determine the petitioner's age. The key principle laid down is that the determination of juvenility is a mandatory statutory duty that requires a formal inquiry, including medical evidence, regardless of the stage of trial at which the plea is raised, as the statute imposes no time limitation for such an application.
- Is a trial court required to conduct a formal inquiry, including a medical report, when a plea of juvenility is raised by an accused?
- Does the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 impose a time limitation or specific stage for filing an application to determine the age of an accused?
- Is the trial court obligated to determine the age of an accused through an ossification test when the accused claims to be a juvenile?
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
Through this criminal revision petition under Sections 435, 439, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.07.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan through which the application submitted by him to declare him juvenile has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant to the matter in hand are that petitioner was booked in respect of case FIR No, 374/2014, dated 16.08.2014, in respect of offence under Section 302, PPC at Police Station Alpa, District Multan., the trial of which was in progress. During trial petitioner moved an application for his trial as juvenile accused with the assertion that at the time of alleged occurrence he was aged about 16 years and 11 months, so he could not be tried as major accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that according to record maintained by NADRA , petitioner was less than 18 years of aged at the time of alleged occurrence, which took place on 16.08.2014, he was 16 years and 11 months of age; that the learned trial Court had straightaway dismissed the application without following the procedure laid down under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000.
4. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with the contention that the application was filed at a belated stage. The trial of the case has already been concluded and the case was at the stage of final arguments. The petitioner should have taken the plea of juvenility at the earliest, hence the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order , it has been noticed that Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 clearly reflects that if a question to determine the age of a child arises, the learned Juvenile Court shall record findings after an inquiry which shall include a medical report for determination of the age of the child. The petitioner has specifically claimed through NADRA record that he is less than 18 years of age, hence it was mandatory for the learned trial Court to hold inquiry regarding determination of age of the petitioner through ossification test. The provision clearly indicates that no stage has been mentioned therein for filing application for determination of age of an accused for the purpose of declaring him juvenile or otherwise.
6. In the above back drop, this criminal revision is accepted, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned trial Court for holding inquiry including ossification test as per rules to determine the age of the accused and then to formulate an opinion on the question of juvenility .