ADHAM Versus AATE
The petitioner, facing trial for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought to be treated as a child under the Sind Children Act, 1955. He filed an application before the trial court requesting separation of his trial from co-accused, asserting he was under 16 years of age at the time of the offence. The trial court dismissed this application, and the High Court subsequently dismissed his criminal revision application. The petitioner challenged this, relying on a Police Surgeon's certificate estimating his age between 15 and 16 years, despite conflicting medical evidence from a Medical Superintendent and a Medical Board, both of which assessed his age at approximately 18 years. The core legal question is whether, in the face of conflicting medical opinions regarding the age of an accused, the opinion favouring the accused's claim of minority must be accepted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in disregarding the evidence supporting the petitioner's minority status.
- Does a medical opinion favouring an accused's claim of minority prevail when there are conflicting medical reports regarding the age of the accused?
- Is an accused entitled to a separate trial under the Sind Children Act 1955 if they are found to be under 16 years of age?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Sind Children Act 1955
- Section 10, Sind Children Act 1955
ORDER
S.A.NUSRAT, J.‑‑ The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (West), Karachi under section 302/34, P.P.C. along with co‑accused Ali Muhammad and Muhammad Akram for the alleged murder of one Rasool Bux. The petitioner moved an application in the Court under section 5 of the Sind Children Act, 1955 praying that since at the time of the commission of the offence he was below 16 years of age, his case may be separated from the co‑accused under section 10 of the Act and tried accordingly. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 28‑10‑1985. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court through a Criminal Revision Application which has been dismissed as per impugned judgment, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to a certificate issued by the Police Surgeon, dated 19‑7‑1984 showing the age of the petitioner as between 15/16 years. However, according to the certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent he was .found to be aged about 18 years. The petitioner was also examined by the Medical Board and his age was determined to be 18 years 'as nearly as could be ascertained'.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above conflicting opinions about the age of the petitioner, the opinion favouring the petitioner with regard to his minority was liable to be accepted and the petitioner's revision application should have been allowed by the High Court.
4. The above contention needs examination and leave to appeal is accordingly granted.
M. Y. H. Leave granted.