DOST MUHAMMAD Versus State

MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J. ---This revision petition, calls in question the order dated 05.04.2019, of the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab, whereby request made by the petitioner, for ossification test of respondent No.2 namely Muhammad Ikram (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), has been declined.

2. The petitioner had got registered FIR No. 310, dated 28.09.2018, under Section 302, P.P.C., at Police Station Quaidabad, District Khushab, against the respondent for committing 'qatl-e-amd' of Qamar Hayat. The Police had found the respondent as minor, hence while declaring him so, had submitted the challan in the court, constituted under The Juvenile Justices System Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The petitioner while declaring the above mentioned findings of the Police, to be against the required procedure and based upon incorrect documents, had requested the learned trial court, that to reach at just and fair conclusion, ossification test of the respondent may be got conducted, but the said learned court, through the impugned order, had declined such a request.

4. Section 8 of the Act, deals towards determination of age of an accused, which reads as under:-

"8. Determination of age.---(1) Where a person alleged to have committed an offence physically appears or claims to be a juvenile for the purpose of this Act, the officer-in-charge of the police station or the investigation officer shall make an inquiry to determine the age of such person on the basis of his birth certificate, education certifications or any other pertinent documents. In absence of such documents, age of such accused person may be determined on the basis of a medical examination report by a medical officer.

(2) When an accused person who physically appears to be juvenile for the purpose of this Act is brought before a Court under Section 167 of the Code, the Court before granting further detention shall record its findings regarding age on the basis of available record including the report submitted by the police or medical examination report by a medical officer."

5. The above mentioned provision carries two steps. First is to be adopted by investigation officer, whereas other by the Court. At both the occasions, if an accused claims himself to be juvenile or from appearance, he seems so, then the investigation officer or the court shall make an inquiry to this effect, which may include a medical report, made by a medical officer.

6. In the matter in hand, the investigation officer had only relied upon the documents produced before him, by the respondent. One of such documents, was admittedly incorrect, but even then, no effort by the investigation officer was made, for medical examination of the respondent. Even the learned court, where challan against the respondent had been submitted, had failed to resolve the controversy in question and order for the above mentioned examination.

7. It has further been noticed that the investigation officer, on one hand, had alleged the respondent to be a juvenile, whereas on the other hand, he had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 7 of the Act, which is as follows:-

"7. Investigation in juvenile cases.---(1) A juvenile shall be interrogated by a police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector under supervision of Superintendent of Police or SDPO.

(2) The investigation officer designated under subsection (1) shall be assisted by a probation officer or by a social welfare officer notified by the Government to prepare social investigation report to be annexed with the report prepared under Section 173 of the Code."

The report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., filed in the juvenile court does not suggest that the respondent was interrogated under the supervision of Superintendent of Police or the SDPO concerned, with assistance of the Probation Officer or Social Welfare Officer, notified by the Government, for the purpose.

8. Under the above mentioned circumstances, it would be appropriate that for determination of age of the respondent, his medical examination should be got conducted.

9. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is allowed, the order in question is set aside and reversed. Meaning thereby, that the above mentioned request of the petitioner, is acceded to, with a direction to the Medical Superintendent of DHQ Hospital, Khushab, to constitute a medical board, for determination of age of the respondent and submit the report, with the learned trial court, which in the light of such a report, shall proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.

SA/D-3/L Revision allowed.