SHAFIQUE-UR-REHMAN Versus State
This criminal revision petition concerns the determination of the petitioner's age for the purpose of trial before a Juvenile Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of an offense, qualified as a juvenile at the time of the occurrence, given conflicting evidence regarding his age. The court examined multiple documents, including police records, a School Leaving Certificate, and a Medical Board report. While the complainant argued that the Medical Board report suggested the petitioner was between 17 and 19 years old—potentially placing him above the age of majority—the court noted that the police record at the time of arrest indicated an age of 15 to 16 years, and the School Leaving Certificate supported a younger age. The court held that the preponderance of evidence indicated the petitioner was under 18 years of age at the time of the incident. Consequently, the court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed that the petitioner be tried by a Juvenile Court, establishing the principle that where conflicting evidence exists, the totality of records must be assessed to determine juvenile status.
- Does a medical board report stating an age range of 17 to 19 years automatically disqualify an accused from juvenile status?
- Can police records and school certificates be used to determine the age of an accused for the purpose of juvenile trial jurisdiction?
- Is an accused entitled to be tried by a Juvenile Court if the preponderance of evidence suggests they were under 18 at the time of the occurrence?
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.-- -In continuation of my order dated 9-9-2005 learned Addl. A.-G. submits that according to report of Medical Board the age of the petitioner was found to be 17 to 19 years so benefit of the same should go to the accused-petitioner.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that two contradictory certificates were produced by the petitioner, that even according to report of Medical Board the age of the petitioner has been given as 17 to 19 years and according to him he is more than 18 years of age. He has also relied upon Muhammad Zakir v. State. 2004 SCMR 121.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment cited by learned counsel for the complainant. In that judgment the Board was of the confirmed opinion that age of the accused was 20 years at the time of examination but in the case in hand at the time of examination, the age of the accused was 17 to 19 years, this report of Medical Board is dated 13-7-2005 and the occurrence in this case had taken place on 25-3-2005, even according to police record when the petitioner was arrested, his age was given 15 to 16 years. Moreover, according to School Leaving Certificate, the age of the petitioner has been shown as 15-3-1990 and in birth certificate the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 9-5-1998 and on this contradiction the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner but to my mind, three documents are in favour of the petitioner, first one is police record, where the age of the petitioner has been given as 15 to 16 years and the second is School Leaving Certificate, where his age has been given as 15-3-1990 while the third is report of Medical Board, where his age has been assessed as 17 to 19 years. It thus means that petitioner was less then 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and order dated 26-7-2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kallurkot is set aside with the observations that petitioner shall be tried by a Juvenile Court.
H.B.T./S-10/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition accepted.