Muhamamd Imran vs Additional Sessions Judge Okara and 2 others
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which dismissed the petitioner's application seeking to be declared a juvenile. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, at the time of the alleged occurrence, was a juvenile, based on conflicting evidence regarding his age. The petitioner relied on a birth certificate and a school leaving certificate to claim minority, while the prosecution relied on a medical board's ossification test report, which estimated the petitioner's age at 19 years. Upon review, the High Court observed that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claims with supporting evidence for the school certificate or birth certificate. Conversely, the medical board, comprising six medical officers, concluded based on physical appearance and radiological examination that the petitioner was approximately 19 years old. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that in the absence of conclusive documentary proof, the findings of a medical board regarding age determination are to be given due weight.
- Is a medical board's ossification test report sufficient to determine the age of an accused when documentary evidence is unsubstantiated?
- Does the failure to produce supporting evidence for a school leaving certificate or birth certificate invalidate a claim of juvenility?
- Can a trial court's order dismissing a juvenile status application be upheld if it aligns with medical evidence and lacks perversity?
Through instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge/trial Court whereby application filed by the petitioner for declaring him as juvenile was dismissed.
2. It is contended that according to the birth certificate issued by NADRA, age of the petitioner at the time of occurrence was less then eighteen years and this fact was verified by the medical board which conducted the ossification test and declared the age of the petitioner as 19 years. That the order passed by learned trial Court is against the facts on the file and is not tenable in the eye of law .
3. Conversely , this petition has vehemently been opposed by learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant; further maintaining that no illegality has been pointed out to be committed learned trial Court in the impugned order , which is according to the settled principles of law .
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The medical board, which was comprising of six medical officers including Chief Consultant Surgeon, DHQ Okara, District Medico Legal Officer, DHQ Hospital, Okara, District Officer Health, Okara, Dental Surgeon, DHQ Hospital, Okara, Radiologist, DHQ Hospital, Okara, Medical Superintendent, DHQ Hospital, Qkara-who, conducted the ossification test of the petitioner and observed as follows: "Certified that Imran urf Mano S/O Ghulam Muhammad, whose particulars and identification marks are mentioned above has been examined by Members of Board for assessment of age. Keeping in view the general physical appearance and Radiologist & Dental examination, his approximate age is 19 years (Nineteen years) However , exact age cannot be determined."
6. The claim of petitioner being juvenile was resting on School Leaving Certificate issued by Talha Public Girls High School Youngpur (Okara) a private institution but he remained fail to establish his claim by producing any supporting evidence to the certificate. Furthermore no evidence was produced by the petitioner in support of his birth certificate also. Even otherwise, medical board also observed that from the physical appearance age of the petitioner does not seem to be' less than 19 years. Reliance is placed on the case of Sultan Ahmad vs. Additional Sessions Judge and two others (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 758).
7. In view of what has been discussed above, no illegality or perversity is observed in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court which is according to settled principles of. This petition being devoid of any force is therefore dismissed.