MUHAMMAD YOUNIS Versus THE STATE
ORDER
The necessary facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that Muhammad Younis petitioner is an accused person in case F.I.R. No.76 registered at Police Station, Ghulam Muhammad Abad, District Faisalabad on 29‑1‑1999 for offences under sections 148/302/324/337‑F(ii)/427/149, P.P.C. which case is presently pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. On 8‑4‑2002 the petitioner had submitted an application before the learned trial Court seeking transfer of the case against him to Juvenile Court as the, petitioner was less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence. After having remained dissatisfied with authenticity and genuineness of various documents being relied upon by the petitioner qua his age the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad ordered on 7‑5‑2002 that the petitioner may be medically examined by a Medical Board of the District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad for determination of is age. On 22‑5‑2002 a Medical Board comprising of three doctors submitted a report before the learned trial Court recording therein a unanimous opinion that the age of the petitioner was between 25 to 35 years. Upon receipt of that report from the Medical Board the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad dismissed the abovementioned application of the petitioner vide order dated 5‑6‑2002. Hence, the present revision petition before this Court.
2. In support of this petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an extract from the Register of Births maintained at the relevant Union Council, academic record of the petitioner the record of investigation of this case prepared by the police, the record maintained by the National Database and Registration Authority and the passport of the petitioner clearly establish that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence and, therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in giving preference to the medical evidence over the above mentioned documentary evidence regarding the age of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases of Hubdar Ali Abbasi v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 634); Muhammad Ishaque v. Muhammad Nadeem and another (2001 MLD 1561); Muhammad Ishaque v. Muhammad Nadeem and another (2002 SCMR 440); Mst. Zaitoon v. Emperor (AIR 1946 Sindh 132); Rajat Kunda alias Ranajit and another v. The State (1968 PCr.LJ 529); Bachinoo v. Abdul Hakim (1975 PCr.LJ 732); Muhammad Anwar and others v. The State (1976 PCr.LJ 1325) and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Sultan Mehmood NLR 1980 Appeal Cases 339. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to various observations recorded by Mr. N.J. Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. As against that the learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant appearing in person have maintained that the documentary evidence being relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim had been manoeuvred, manufactured and got prepared by the petitioner after his involvement in the present criminal case and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon with any degree of certainty. They have further maintained that the medical evidence in this case is so convincing and categoric that all the documents being relied upon by the petitioner are rendered doubtful.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as the complainant in person and going through the documents appended with this petition it has been noticed by this Court that all the documents being relied upon by the petitioner qua his age had been obtained and procured by the petitioner after registration of the above mentioned criminal case against him. It is also significant to mention here that the form filled in by the petitioner's father for issuance of a computerized National identity Card by the National Database and Registration Authority (appended with the present petition as (Annexure‑M) mentions the present petitioner as the only child who was below the age of 18 years at the time of submission of that form whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded before this Court that the petitioner has many other brothers and sisters who are even younger to the present petitioner and they, had not been mentioned in the said form. This clearly establishes that the petitioner's party is ready to falsify any record so as to obtain a favourable finding in connection with the present criminal case. The academic record being relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim had also been prepared and had come about after registration of this criminal e case and the same is based upon information about the petitioner's date of birth supplied by the petitioner himself and not upon any independent evidence in that regard. As against that the Medical Board comprising of three senior doctors had handed down a unanimous finding and had recorded the following observations about the petitioner's age:
"The radiological bone age is above (25) twenty five years, but less than (35) thirty five years. However, its definite age cannot be determined.
On general appearance and physical examination, genital organs and secondary sexual characters are fully developed. Axillay and pubic hairs are coarse and fully developed.
The Board is of the unanimous opinion that his age is above (25) twenty five years, but less than (35) thirty five years. However, its, definite age cannot be determined."
The learned Sessions Judge, who had an opportunity to see the petitioner himself in person, had observed in his order dated 7‑5‑2002 as follows:
"Even the physique, appearance and the other bodily features 'of the accused ex facie negate the claim of the accused."
Intreagued by the apparent huge difference between the medical evidence and the observations made by the learned trial Court on the one hand and the record being relied upon by the petitioner on the other hand I had required the petitioner to appear before this Court in person. Muhammad Younis petitioner has appeared before this Court in person today and after having a good look at the petitioner's physique, appearance and the other visible bodily features I have felt shocked at tire claim of the petitioner's learned counsel regarding the petitioner being less than 18 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence. It may be true that appearances can sometimes be deceptive but it is equally true and unfortunately so, that in order to take advantage of the benign provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 accused persons are generally tempted to get bogus record prepared qua their ages. After having looked at the petitioner and having engaged him in conversation in the Court‑room I have entertained serious doubts about authenticity and genuineness of the record regarding his age being relied upon by him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the learned trial Court had failed to hold the requisite inquiry under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and had not taken the trouble of getting authenticity of the petitioner's documents verified. I have, however, remained unable to subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Holding of such an inquiry in every case may not be necessary or called for and in an appropriate case a Court may not feel persuaded to hold an inquiry in this regard. Acceptance of this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner would make it obligatory for a Court to necessarily hold an inquiry even where an accused person is so young that he is brought before the Court in a cradle or is so old that he is produced from an old people's home! I for one cannot accept such an argument which puts a trial Judge on automation sans discretion and excludes his own application of mind before exercise of jurisdiction and discretion in a matter.
5. The impugned orders dated 7‑5‑2002 and 5‑6‑2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad are speaking orders containing reasons for passage of the same and I have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said reasons. Apart from that no jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad has been pointed out by the learned counsel n for the petitioner so as to warrant an interference in the matter by this Court through exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
6. For what has been discussed above this petition is hereby dismissed.
Revision petition dismissed.
N.H.Q. /M‑1401/L