Law:

Section:

Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000)--- ----S. 7---Age of accused, determination of---Scope---Determination of age of accused claiming himself to be minor---Application for separate trial as juvenile filed by the accused was declined after considering the academic certificates and ossification report---Validity---Undisputed official education record/birth certificate, be given preference particularly when such record was got entered much prior to the incident without having any intention to use it in such eventuality---Since, the provision of S. 7 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 did not specify the mechanism of inquiry for determination of age, but insisted to base a finding after an inquiry, which would include medical report---Ossification test could be helpful in resolving the controversy regarding age of the accused, but such test was a guess work based on the fusion of joints in the human body between birth and age of twenty five years---Expert, in the present case, had opined that there could be an error of about 1 to 2 years in the age, determined by the ossification test---High Court observed that if the academic record stood verified and prima facie was not found to be dubious or an arranged work for getting benefit then the court should give benefit to the accused within the margin of six months, if not of one year or two---If ossification test had declared the accused to be six months older, while the academic or other record was not maneuvered one had shown him to be less than eighteen years, then the accused was to be declared as "child"---Record showed the claim of accused to have born on 4.1.1997 which stood verified not only with reference to his matriculation certificate but also with reference to General Register, which the prosecution did not dispute or claimed to have been arranged or dubious affair---Trial Court, in circumstances, was not legally justified in declaring the accused as "not juvenile", merely with reference to ossification report, which showed the accused "about eighteen years and four months old" at the time of offence---Margin of expression "about" ought to have been given to accused in presence of…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492