Ibrahim Mohammed Alamki Supreme Court Judge 14/42015 Mohammed Abu-Bakr Mahmoud Supreme Court Judge 15l4l2015 I concur to my colleague Ibrahim Almaki but on the following reasons. Firstly; In my contention, the medical report on the age estimation is tainted with obvious ambiguity represented in the following; 1-the signs of maturity shown on the convicted were only two signs (Hand junction and sexual organ hear). It is legally noted that the Islamic Jurists were in contradiction regarding the exclusive signs of maturity – to decide conclusively that the person reached the age of maturity. Secondly: The report drafted by the doctor Yousif stated the convicted age to be between 18- and 20 years. Its provided for in the Juvenile Law Act, 2010 that the immature child age shall not exceed 18 years. Hence the immature child under the law is child under 18 years and the mature one is of the age above 18. The report did not conclusively decide that the child age is above 18 in fact or not. The general estimation is not enough to ground the saying that child is under 18 or above. in such a situation it’s a must that the doctor should be summoned to testify before the court according to the provision of section 30 of the Law of evidence 1994 read with section 31-32 of the same Law. Thirdly; The definite determination of the accused age will determine the competent court and whether it should be the court of Juvenile or the Criminal Court and likewise the applicable law whether it should be the criminal Law Act or the Juvenile Law Act. With standing the definition of mature and immature person under the Juvenile Law, it worth saying once again that the Juvenile law define the mature and immature child by being over 18 for the first and under 18 for the latter while the Criminal Law define the mature child with reference to the appearance of natural signs of maturity. However, the law did not specify these signs or telling how many these signs are, the law never defined the exclusivity of the signs that reflects the probability of maturity. Even the Islamic jurists we controversial on interoperating the word (maturity) as will on the number and kind of signs upon which it could be determined without doubt that the person is or is not mature. The jurists are on different opinion according to the juristic point of view in each religious sector. Some Jurists say its three signs others say its five or even seven bearing in mind whether the concerned child is a male or female. Also, there is contradiction between the Islamic Jurists about the probable age required to the appearance of the maturity signs themselves. Some of the jurist adopted the age of 12, some 15, and other think the age to be 18,19 or even 20 –for the signs to appear. It should more over be noted that all the crime and punishments stated in the Juvenile Law Act are promulgated under special provisions they are discretionary in nature and not like