Short Note : The learned counsel for the appellant while reserving his right to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 308 I.P.C. on merits had assailed the order of the trial Court in awarding the sentence of imprisonment on the ground that the appellant's age in the challan having been shown as 19 or 20 years and the appellant himself in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. having given his age as 20 years, the trial Court merely on estimating the apparent age of the appellant as 30 years could not have avoided the mandatory provisions of section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act according to which before sentencing the appellant to imprisonment it ought to have satisfied itself that it was not desirable to deal with the appellant under section 3 or section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Held: In the opinion of this Court, the contention of the learned counsel must be accepted. When the appellant gave his age in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. as 20 years and in case the trial Court was in doubt about the exact age it ought to have made an enquiry into the matter before awarding the sentence and should have determined the age. In the absence of any such enquiry having been made the statement made by the appellant regarding his age should have been accepted and the question whether it was not desirable to give the benefit of section 3 or section 4 of the probation of Offenders Act to the appellant ought to have been considered in view of the provisions contained in section 6 of the said Act. Raisul v. State of U.P., (1975) 4 SCC 301, relied on. Case remanded. Appeal partly allowed.