IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1617 OF 2022 
(On appeal against the order dated 17.11.2022 
passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in 
Criminal Revision No. 99/2022) 
 
Gufran Ali 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
Haseeb Khan and another  
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman Abbasi, ASC 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
N.R.  
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
23.05.2023 
 
ORDER 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through the instant petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 
1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by 
the learned Single Judge of the learned Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, 
vide which the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional 
District & Sessions Judge-IV, East-Islamabad was upheld.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the respondent 
No. 1 Haseeb Khan was proceeded against in terms of the case registered 
vide FIR No. 853/2021 dated 02.10.2021 under Section 302 PPC at Police 
Station Koral, Islamabad, for committing murder of Raja Nadeem Ghalib, 
paternal cousin of the petitioner/complainant. Pursuant to an application 
submitted by the respondent No. 1, the learned Trial Court vide order 
dated 02.11.2022 declared the respondent No. 1 juvenile at the time of 
commission of the offence. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant 
filed Criminal Revision before the learned Islamabad High Court but it also 
met the same fate vide impugned order. Hence, this petition.  
Criminal Petition No. 1617/2022 
2
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by learned counsel for 
the petitioner that there is a conflict regarding the date of birth of the 
respondent-accused i.e. according to NADRA record, his date of birth is 
14.07.2005 whereas the certificate issued by Secretary Union Council 
Naryab, Hangu shows his date of birth as 06.03.2007. Contends that the 
learned courts below overlooked the report of the Medical Board wherein 
according to Radiology Department the age of the accused was shown as 
18 to 20 years whereas according to Dental Department, the age of the 
accused was 16 to 18 years. Lastly contends that the learned Trial Court 
ought to have called the members of the Medical Board and cross-
examine them before arriving at the conclusion. In support of the 
contentions raised, learned counsel placed reliance on Muhammad Aslam 
Vs. The State (PLD 2009 SC 777).  
4. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some 
length and have perused the available record.  
5. 
 
Ordinarily, the date of birth of a person is determined on the 
basis of documentary proof i.e. birth certificate, educational documents 
and National Identity Card etc but when the date of birth is disputed and 
varies on all such documents then the ossification test is the best way to 
determine a person’s age. The ossification test is a test that determines 
age based on the “degree of fusion of bone” by taking the x-ray of a few 
bones. In simple words, the ossification test or osteogenesis is the process 
of the bone formation based on the fusion of joints between birth and the 
age of twenty five years in an individual. Bone age is an indicator of the 
skeletal and biological maturity of an individual which assists in the 
determination of age. The ossification test varies slightly based on 
individual characteristics such as climatic conditions where the person 
born and raised, dietic values, hereditary differences etc. In the present 
case, there was a conflict between the Birth Registration Certificate issued 
by the Secretary Union Council Naryab, Hangu and the NADRA record 
regarding the date of birth of the respondent No. 1. In this backdrop, the 
learned Trial Court rightly constituted a medical board to examine the 
Criminal Petition No. 1617/2022 
3
respondent-accused. We have perused the report submitted by the 
medical board. The report consists of three opinions of (i) Radiology 
Department, (ii) General Medicine Department and (iii) Dental 
Department. Although the age of the respondent was found to be 18 to 20 
years and 16 to 18 years by the two departments but it is settled principle 
of law that if two views are possible from the evidence adduced in the 
case then the view favourable to the accused is to be adopted. Reliance is 
placed on Saghir Ahmed Vs. State (2023 SCMR 241) and Sahib Ullah Vs. 
The State (2022 SCMR 1806). During the course of arguments, learned 
counsel repeatedly argued that the actual date of birth of the respondent 
was according to NADRA record i.e. 14.07.2005. However, even if the date 
of birth of the respondent as per the NADRA record is considered to be 
true, his age was 16 years 02 months and 19 days at the time of 
commission of the crime, therefore, in all eventuality he was a juvenile at 
that time. So far as the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the 
petitioner is concerned, the same is distinguishable as in the case of 
Muhammad Aslam supra, no ossification test of the accused was 
conducted and the learned courts below had decided the issue of age of 
the accused on the basis of School Leaving Certificate and the Birth 
Register. This Court held that “whenever such a question of age is raised 
or arises at the trial, the courts should not deal with the same in a 
cursory or in a slip-shod manner but must proceed to hold an inquiry in 
the matter as commanded by the provisions of section 7 of the Juvenile 
Justice System Ordinance including medical examination of the accused 
for the purpose.” As per Section 510 Cr.P.C. the report of the expert in 
various fields of science can be produced in evidence without calling 
them and can be used as evidence in any inquiry or trial or other 
proceedings. The learned High Court has correctly appreciated the 
material aspects of the case and the conclusions drawn are in line with the 
guidelines enunciated by this Court on the subject. Learned counsel for the 
petitioner has not been able to point out any legal or factual error in the 
impugned judgment, which could be made basis to take a different view 
from that of the learned High Court.  
Criminal Petition No. 1617/2022 
4
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit 
in this petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. The 
above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.   
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
23rd of May, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram