V. P. MATHUR, J. Mr. L. S. Shukla, the then VII Additional Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur by his judgment and order dated 31-5-1978 found the appellant Ganga Saran guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304, Part-I of the Indian Penal Code, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to imprison ment for life. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The case was started on a first information report lodged by Jagdish deceased on 19-1-1976 at 5. 35 p. m. at Police Station Nigohi, District Shahjahan pur. Jagdish as well as Ganga Saran were both residents of village Gurgawan, P. S. Nigohi. The occurrence took place on 19-1-1976 at 1 p. m. prosecution case was that Jagdish was carrying out some agricultural operations in his field when the appellant Ganga Saran reached there. He was furious because his brother Kishore had been given a beating by Jagdishs younger brother Rati Ram in the earlier part of the day at 12 noon. Ganga Saran started scolding Jagdish for the lapse of his brother and when there was exchange of abuses, Ganga Saran whipped out a knife and struck it in the chest of Jagdish causing him injuries and then ran away. The occurrence was seen by witnesses Dori and Ram Asrey who were nearby and reached the spot. Jagdish also come back to his own house and his father arranged for a charpoy for him, where he rested. Village Pradhan arrived and scribed the first information report at the dictation of Jagdish. Then arrangement for a cart was made and Jagdish was transported to the police station where he lodged the first information report which is now being treated as his dying declaration. 3. The case was originally registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Jagdish was brought to the hospital where his injuries were examined by Dr. D. S. Sudhakar Garg on 19-1-1976 at 9. 40 p. m. Dr. Garg found two incised wounds on his person as follows :- 1. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm on left side of chest 9 cms from left nipple at 50clock position with clean cut margins. The wound was gaping. 2. Incised wound 0. 5 cm xo. 25 cm on left side of chest 10 cms from 1st wound in mid axillary line. The injury No. 1 was kept under observation and X-ray was advised. The wound was gaping. 2. Incised wound 0. 5 cm xo. 25 cm on left side of chest 10 cms from 1st wound in mid axillary line. The injury No. 1 was kept under observation and X-ray was advised. He was detained in the hospital for treatment, but, it appears that on 20-1-1976 inspite of medical care he died. An information was communicated to the Thana where the case was converted to one under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code on 25-1-1976. 4. The post mortem examination report is dated 21-1-1976. The post mortem examination was made at 11. 30 a. m. by Dr. Mohd. Sharif of the District Hospital. The two injuries mentioned in the earlier injury report were there and the result was that the left lung had received an incised wound at the site of injury No. 1 and the peritoneum had been cut. The liver had a punctured wound on the lower margin of the left lobe. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of the death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries as men tioned above. The doctor was also of the opinion that the injuries were caused by some long pointed sharp edged object, which can be a knife. 5. The statement of Jagdish was recorded on 20-1-1976 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which again is being relied upon as his dying declaration. 6. The prosecution examined Dori as PW 1 and Ram Asrey as PW 2. Neelkanth father of the deceased was also examined as PW 4 and remaining wit nesses were the two doctors and the police personnel. 7. In his statement, the accused-appellant Ganga Saran took the stand that Jagdishs younger brother Ratiram had given a beating to his elder brother Ram Kishore at about 12 in the day. Jagdish was in his agricultural field and the accused-appellant went to him to complain about the incident. Upon this Jagdish got infuriated and attacked him with a khurpi, as a result of which he received an injury on his wrist. Then the appellant ran away from the spot. He had hardly gone about 5 or 10 paces when he turned down and saw Jagdish still giving him a chase. Then he whipped out a knife and by that time Jagdish came him and merely in self-defence he used the knife and ran away. Then the appellant ran away from the spot. He had hardly gone about 5 or 10 paces when he turned down and saw Jagdish still giving him a chase. Then he whipped out a knife and by that time Jagdish came him and merely in self-defence he used the knife and ran away. 8. From PW 2 Ram Ashrey, it has been elicited during his cross-examina tion that Jagdish was possessed of a khurpi; that after an exchange of abuses between the appellant and Jagdish, they both grappled with each other and it was then that Jagdish was given a knife blow by Ganga Saran. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that the accused-appellant was less than 16 years of age on the date of his trial and there fore, he could not be sentenced to any term of imprisonment, in view of Section 27 of the U. P. Children Act. On merits also he has argued that it was a clear cut case of an assault in self-defence of person and therefore, no case under Sec tion 304, I. P. C. or any other provision of law is made out against his client. 10. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the prosecution story finds complete corroboration from the testimonies of the two witnesses Dori (PW 1) and Raua Asrey (PW 2) and even the statement of Ram Asrey which has been referred to by the learned Counsel, does not make out any case for self- defence in favour of the appellant. Besides this, there is the statement of the deceased also recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and even the first information report which was lodged by him, contains his version of the occurrence which is also to be treated as dying declaration. In the light of these pieces of evid ence and in the absence of any evidence to show that Ganga Saran had received any injury as he claims to have received in his statement, the prosecution case was satisfactorily made out and the offence against Ganga Saran under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was well established. 11. In the light of these pieces of evid ence and in the absence of any evidence to show that Ganga Saran had received any injury as he claims to have received in his statement, the prosecution case was satisfactorily made out and the offence against Ganga Saran under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was well established. 11. Coming to the question of sentence, Section 27 of the U. P. Children Act lays down that "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, no Court shall sentence a child to death or transportation or any other term of imprisonment". This does not limit the consideration of the question of age only to the date on which the sentence is being passed. A similar matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Jayendra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 685 and it was held that if a child is found to have committed an offence punishable with imprison-ment, the Court may order him to be sent to an approved school for such period of stay as will not exceed the attainment by the child of the age of 18 years. The Supreme Court in the case referred to above was considering the question of sentence against Jayendra, who was found to be 23 years of age by Supreme Court at the time of delivery of judgment. Under these circumstances, it was held that although the conviction of the appellant has to be upheld, the sentence imposed upon him has to be quashed, because he cannot now be sent back to an approved school, having already attained the age of more than 18 years. 12. So far as Ganga Saran is concerned, he is also more than 18 years of age now. Therefore, the question of his being sent to an approved school does not arise, but from his statement it is clear that he was 15 years 7 months of age on the date when the offence in this case was committed. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case above, the conviction of the appellant Ganga Saran is to be upheld, but the sentence imposed upon him has to be quashed with a direction that he need not surrender. His bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged. 13. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case above, the conviction of the appellant Ganga Saran is to be upheld, but the sentence imposed upon him has to be quashed with a direction that he need not surrender. His bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged. 13. The appeal it partly allowed accordingly. Appeal partly allowed. .