Judgment :- Thangamani, J. One Rajan alias Thiruvengada Karthigeyan has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.153 of 1985 on his file. 2. Three charges were framed against the appellant in the trial Court. The first charge under Sec.302, I.P.C. was that on 11. 1984 at 2.00 p.m. at Thanneer Panthal in Chinna Thadagam village he intentionally caused the death of one Janaki by shooting on her chest with a D.B. gun. The next charge under Sec.307, I.P.C. was on five counts for having attempted to commit the murder of P.W.1 Livingston Theodar, P.W.5, Saradhamani, P.W.5 Somakkal, P.W.3 Chinnammal and P.W.2 Angammal at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction by shooting them with the same gun. The third charge relates to the unlawful possession of the weapon without licence under Sec.3 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and marked 52 Exhibits and 32 Material Objects on its side. One Doctor Uma Rani, Radiologist of Coimbatore Medical College Hospital was examined as Court Witness No.1 and Exs.C-1 to C-3 X-Rays and working sheet regarding the age of the appellant were also marked. On the side of the appellant 13 Exhibits were marked. 4. These facts emerge from the materials on record: One Venkatarama Gounder is the father of the appellant. P.W.16 Ramasamy was cultivating the land of Venkatarama Gounder on lease for about 9 years. In 1979 Venkatarama Gounder filed a suit to evict Ramasamy from his land. P.W.16 Ramasamy also filed an application to register him as a tenant of the land under the Record of Tenancy Act. So there was enmity between P.W.16 Ramasamy and Venkatarama Gounder. There was also enmity between the family of the appellant and one Veerabathira Gounder of that place on account of ridge dispute. This Veerabathira Gounder was living with his second wife P.W.6 Subbammal and daughters deceased Janaki and P.W.5 Saradhamani in Thanneer Panthal. His first wife P.W.4 Somakkal was put up with her son P.W.7 Dhanavendran in the opposite house. P.W.1 Livingston is the neighbouring land owner of Veerabathira Gounder. In that connection he used to move with the family of Veerabathira Gounder. He is also a family friend of P.W.16 Ramasamy. This was not relished by the appellant. 5. On 11. His first wife P.W.4 Somakkal was put up with her son P.W.7 Dhanavendran in the opposite house. P.W.1 Livingston is the neighbouring land owner of Veerabathira Gounder. In that connection he used to move with the family of Veerabathira Gounder. He is also a family friend of P.W.16 Ramasamy. This was not relished by the appellant. 5. On 11. 1984 at about 2.00 p.m. P.W.1 Livingston and his brother P.W.15 Albert finished their lunch in their house and came out to wash their hands. The appellant Rajan was standing east of the fence with M.O.2 Series D.B. gun. M.O.1 Moped bearing Registration No.T.T.V. 2590 was parked near him. Saying the appellant fired at P.W.1 Livingston. The bullet struck his face, chest, abdomen, right and left shoulders and blood began to ooze out. P.W.15 Albert took him inside the house and made him to lie on a cot. 6. Then the appellant got on the Moped and proceeded towards north. On the way P.W.2 Angammal was waiting for the bus in the Tea shop of P.W.16 Ramasamy. The appellant shouted at P.W.16 Ramasamy. When he pointed out his D.B. gun towards P.W.16 Ramasamy, he began to run towards east. P.W.2 Angammal also got afraid and followed P.W.16 Ramasamy. The appellant fired at them. P.W.2 Angammal sustained gun shot injuries. When P.W.16 Ramasamy turned back he saw P.W.2 Angammal sitting on the centre of the road with bleeding injuries. 7. The appellant next came to the house of P.W.7 Dhanavendran and fired at him. However, the shots hit on the head, face and eyes of P.W.3 Chinnammal who was standing near him. P.W.4 Somakkal came running and asked the appellant why he shot at P.W.3 Chinnammal. Thereupon the appellant shot at P.W.4 Somakkal also. She also sustained bullet injury in her hand and face. 8. On hearing the gun shot noise. P.W.5 Saradha-mani, her sister deceased Janaki and her mother P.W.6 Subbammal came out of their house. They saw the appellant standing 5 or 6 feet from the door step with M.O.2 series D.B. gun. The appellant aimed at deceased Janaki and fired a shot The bullet hit on the chest of Janaki and she fell down dead. When P.W.5 Saradhamani went to her help, the appellant shot at her. The bullet hit her thighs and a wall nearby. P.W.6 Subbammal took her daughter inside the house. The appellant aimed at deceased Janaki and fired a shot The bullet hit on the chest of Janaki and she fell down dead. When P.W.5 Saradhamani went to her help, the appellant shot at her. The bullet hit her thighs and a wall nearby. P.W.6 Subbammal took her daughter inside the house. The appellant ran away from that place with his D.B. gun. 9. P.W.7 Dhanavendran who was witnessing the appellant firing shots at P.W.3 Chinnammal, P.W.4 Somakkal, P.W.5 Saradhamani and deceased Janaki chased him along with his father Veerabathira Gounder and caught hold of him. The appellant threw away M.O.2 gun on the ground. At that time M.O.17 series six empty cartridges also fell down. The father and son brought a tempo from Thadagam and took P.Ws.1 to 5 and the appellant in that van to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. P.W.15 Albert also accompanied them. 10. On 11. 1984 at about 2.45 p.m. P.W.16 Ramasamy Gounder went to the house of P.W.19 Village Administrative Officer of Chinna Thadagam village and narrated the incident to him. P.W.19 village Administrative Officer directed P.W.16 Ramasamy to go back. Then at about 3.30 P.M. he visited the scene of occurrence with his subordinates. At the junction of three roads of Thannerr Panthal village he found M.O.1 Moped, M.O.2 series D.B. gun in broken condition M.O.17 series six empty cartridges. About 80 feet away from that place Janaki was lying dead with bullet injuries. At the scene place he wrote Ex.P-29 report, proceeded to Thudiyalur Police Station and handed over the same to P.W.20 Sub Inspector there at 7.00 p.m. The Sub-Inspector registered the same in his Station Crime No.296 of 1984 under Secs.302 and 307, I.P.C. He also prepared Ex.P-38 Express F.I.R. He despatched Exs.P-29 and P-38 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’ Court. 11. In the meanwhile, at 3.40 p.m. P.W.9 Doctor attached to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital examined P.W.5 Saradha for certain injuries alleged to have been sustained due to shooting by one known person on that day by a double barrel rifle in Thanneer Panthal of Thadagam Village. She found the following injuries on her: Multiple powder shot burns on the medical aspect of both lower limbs. Black powder colouration around the wounds present. She is of the opinion that the above injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P-13 is the copy of the Accident Register issued by her. 12. She found the following injuries on her: Multiple powder shot burns on the medical aspect of both lower limbs. Black powder colouration around the wounds present. She is of the opinion that the above injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P-13 is the copy of the Accident Register issued by her. 12. On the same day at 3.50 p.m. P.W.9 Doctor examined P.W.4 Somakkal and found these injuries on her: Multiple powder shot burns wounds on back and front of left arm and forearm. Black powder discolouration around the wounds present. She is of the opinion that the above injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P-4 is the copy of the Accident Register issued by her. 13. At 55. p.m. P.W.9 Doctor examined P.W.1 Livingston and noticed these injuries: Multiple powder shot burns wounds over the abdomen, chest, shoulder, both arms, forearms, on the face over forehead, cheeks and nose. There was contusion on the right eye. Swelling over left cheek was present. Black-discolouration around the wounds was present. She is of the opinion that the above injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P-5 is the copy of the Accident Register issued by her. 14. At 4.00 p.m. P.W.9 Doctor examined the appellant Rajan who was brought by. P.W.7 Dha-navendran, for treatment of certain injuries sustained by him due to fall as the people who ran pushed him down on 11. 1984 at 2.00 p.m. near Thanner Panthal Thottam, Thadagam. On examination she found the patient was some-conscious. His breath was smelling of alcohol. His pupils were dilated reacting sluggishly to light. His eyes were congested. The following injuries were found on him: Small abrasion of negligible size just below right eye. Abrasion on dorsal aspect of left ring and little finger. Small abrasion 1 x 1 cm. on front of right leg just below the knee. she is of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P-8 is the copy of the Accident Register issued by her. .15. At 4.07 p.m. P.W.9 Doctor examined P.W.3 Chinnammal and saw these injuries on her: .Multiple powder shot burns wounds on left temporal region, on right parietal bone near the midline, around right eye, right cheek and forehead. A separate wound just below lower lip on left side was found. Black discolouration around the wounds were present. Contusion around right eye and cheek were present. A separate wound just below lower lip on left side was found. Black discolouration around the wounds were present. Contusion around right eye and cheek were present. She is of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P-6 is the copy of the Accident Register issued by her. .16. At 4.12 p.m. P.W.9 Doctor examined P.W.2 Angammal and found these injuries on her: .Multiple powder shot burns wounds on back, on upper hip. Black discolouration around the wounds were present. She is of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P-7 is the copy of the Accident Register issued by her. 17. Thereafter P.W.9 Doctor sent Exs.P-9 and P-10 intimations to the Police regarding the admission of P.Ws.1 to 5 and the appellant in the Hospital, At 4.45 p.m. They were received in the Outpost of Coimbatore Medical College Hospital by P.W.17 Head Constable. He proceed to the Hospital Ward and recorded Ex.D-2 statement from P.W.1 Livingston. At 9.30 p.m., he sent Exs.P-9, P-10 and D-2 to Thudiyalur Police Station. 18. On receipt of phone message from P.W.20 Sub Inspector, P.W.22 Inspector proceeded to Than-neer Panthal and took up investigation at 8.30 p.m. He got Ex.P-39 series photographs taken of the scene place by P.W.21 Photographer. He prepared Ex.P-30 observation mahazar and Ex.P-51 rough sketch of that spot. He recovered M.O.1 Moped, M.O.2 series D.B. gun pieces and M.O.17 series six empty cartridges from the road leading to Aabaikatti near the scene of occurrence under Ex.P-31 mahazar. From 10.30 p.m. to 1.30a.m. on the next day he held request over the dead body of Janaki. At that time he examined P. Ws.6,7,16 and 19. Ex.P-52 is the Inquest report prepared by him. He sent the dead body for post-mortem through P.W.12 Constable with Ex.P-1 requisition. 19. On 11. 1984 at 11.30 a.m. P.W.8 Doctor commenced the post-mortem over the dead body of Janaki in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore. The body was cold and Riger Mortis present all over. A circular area of burns was noticed over the saree. There was a large irregular wound (circular hole) with lacerated edges 5 cm. x 5 cm. x 8 cm. seen over the front of chest just below both the collar bones with surrounding tatoo marks. The body was cold and Riger Mortis present all over. A circular area of burns was noticed over the saree. There was a large irregular wound (circular hole) with lacerated edges 5 cm. x 5 cm. x 8 cm. seen over the front of chest just below both the collar bones with surrounding tatoo marks. On dissection showed that the wound has passed directly backwards and outwards towards the right side chest fragmenting the manubrium sternum and fracturing the first and second ribs over the front on the left side, and fracturing the second and third ribs on the right side over the front, and producing multiple penetrating injuries to the pericardium left side lung and root of aorta and pulmonary trunk. There was a through circular injury over the right side lung with surrounding contusion. Pericardial sac contained 200 ml. of clotted blood. Multiple pellets injuries noticed over the heart and both lungs. Right side thoracic cavity contained 500 ml. of fluid bullet. An exit wound 5 cm. x 5 cm. x 1 cm. seen on the inner wall of right side thoracic wall with lacerated edges. On dissection showed that fracturing the 3rd and 5 th ribs at their outer aspect with circular irregular hold with surrounding contusion. Both lungs collapsed and pale on dissection. Heart-empty. Coronaries potent. Liver, Spleen, Kidneys and Brain: Pale on dissection. He recovered 27 distorted lead pellets M.O.18 series, 7 torn pieces card board M.O.19 series and 2 distorted whitish metal pieces M.O.20 series from the dead body. In the opinion of the Doctor the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the shot gun injuries sustained by her. Ex.P-2 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. The external injuries and the corresponding internal injuries are fatal. 20. P.W.12 Constable recovered M.O.25 saree, M.O.26 skirt, M.O.27 jacket, M.O.28,bra, M.O.13 series thali, M.O.14 series Bangles, M.O.15 series ear-rings, M.O.16 series nose rings from the body and entrusted the same in the Police Station under Ex.P-15 form 95. 21. In the meanwhile, at 1.45 a.m. P.W.22 Inspector had recovered M.O.29 blood stained earth and M.O.30 sample earth under Ex.P-32 mahazar from the place where the body of Janaki was lying. Then he examined P.W.15 Albert. 22. 21. In the meanwhile, at 1.45 a.m. P.W.22 Inspector had recovered M.O.29 blood stained earth and M.O.30 sample earth under Ex.P-32 mahazar from the place where the body of Janaki was lying. Then he examined P.W.15 Albert. 22. At 10.00 a.m. P.W.22 Inspector proceeded to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and seized M.O.3 towel from P.W.1 Livingston under Ex.P-33 mahazar at 11.45 a.m. he recovered M.O.9 sarees from P.W.5 Saradhamani under Ex.P-34 mahazar. From P.W.5 Saradhamani he also recovered M.O.10 series saree pieces, M.O.11 green skirt and M.O.12 bed sheet under Ex.P-35 mahazar. From P.W.2 Angammal he recovered M.O.4 saree, M.O.5, jacket and M.O.6 skirt under Ex.P-36 mahazar. He seized M.O.7 pink saree and M.O.8 blouse from P.W.3 Chinnammal under Ex.P-37 mahazar. On the same day he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 2,3,5 and 19. He also showed M.O.2 series cartridges and examined P.W.8 Doctor. 23. On 11. 1984 P.W.11 Radiologist located where exactly the pellets were lodged in the bodies of P.Ws.1 and3 to 5. Exs.P-11 to P-14are the relevant X-rays. P.W.10 Doctor working in the Surgical Department of Coimbatore Medical College Hospital removed the pellets from the bodies of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 on 211. 1984 and other dates. M.O.22 series, 23 series and 24 series are those pellets. As per the request of P.W.22 Inspector, those pellets are preserved. 24. On 11. 1984 at 10.00 a.m. P.W.22 Inspector arrested the accused in the bus stop opposite to the Hospital and sent him to Court on the next day. 25. On 11. 1984 P.W.22 Inspector sent Ex.P-16 Requisition to the Court to forward M.Os.2 to 12, 1718,25 to 30 for chemical examination. Pursuant to the same P.W.13 the Head Clerk of J.S.C.M. Court arranged to send them for chemical examination under Ex.P-17 covering letter. Ex.P-18 is the report of the Chemical Examiner. Exs.P-19,20 and 21 are the reports of P.W.18 Forensic Science Expert. Exs.P-22 and P-23 are the reports of the Serologist. P.W.13 also sent 28 pellets recovered from the bodies of the injured witnesses for chemical examination under Ex.P-25 covering letter. Ex.P-26 is the report of the Expert. 26. On 6. 1985 his successor P.W.23 Inspector continued the investigation. On 27. 1985 he examined P.W.11 Radiologist and recorded his statement. On the same day he examined P.W.9 Doctor. On 19. P.W.13 also sent 28 pellets recovered from the bodies of the injured witnesses for chemical examination under Ex.P-25 covering letter. Ex.P-26 is the report of the Expert. 26. On 6. 1985 his successor P.W.23 Inspector continued the investigation. On 27. 1985 he examined P.W.11 Radiologist and recorded his statement. On the same day he examined P.W.9 Doctor. On 19. 1984 he sought and obtained Ex.P-27 permission from the Collector of Coimbatore for proceeding against the accused under the Arms Act. Ex.P-28 is the licence granted to Venkatarama Gounder to possess a D.B. gun. On 29. 1985 he completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. 27. When examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. the appellant while denying the allegations against him stated that he was aged only 18 years. On 11. 1984 the family members of Veerabathira Gounder pelted stones on his house and damaged the same. They also beat him. Thereupon his mother took him to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. When he was returning from the hospital after treatment he was arrested by the Police, He wanted the birth extract filed by him also to be considered along with his statement. This extract discloses that his date of birth is 2. 1968. 28. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge on the first charge found the appellant guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life; on the second charge found him guilty on three counts under Sec.307, I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and imposed a fine of Rs.100 in default to undergo R.I. for four weeks on each count; on the same charge found him guilty on two counts under Sec.324, I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him under R.I. for two years; and on the third charge found him guilty under Sec.3 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 29. The appellant has preferred this present appeal against the said conviction and sentence as stated earlier. 30. P.W.1 Livingston, P.W.2 Angammal, P.W.3 Chinnammal, P.W.4 Somakkal, P.W.5 Saradha-mani, P.W.6 Subbammal, P.W.7 Dhanavendran, P.W.15 Albert and P.W.16 Ramasamy are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Of them P.Ws.1 to 5 have sustained bullet injuries. They were taken to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. Within 1 1/2 hours of the incident and given treatment there. 30. P.W.1 Livingston, P.W.2 Angammal, P.W.3 Chinnammal, P.W.4 Somakkal, P.W.5 Saradha-mani, P.W.6 Subbammal, P.W.7 Dhanavendran, P.W.15 Albert and P.W.16 Ramasamy are eye witnesses to the occurrence. Of them P.Ws.1 to 5 have sustained bullet injuries. They were taken to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. Within 1 1/2 hours of the incident and given treatment there. P.W.9 Doctor who examined these injured witnesses was informed that all of them had sustained the injuries on account of shooting by one known person on that day by a double barrel rifle in Thanneer Panthal of Thadagam village. The above evidence of this Doctor as well as the nature of injuries noticed by him amply corroborate the version of these eye witnesses who state that at about 2.00 p.m. on that day the appellant went on a shooting spree. First he shot at P.W.1 Livingston in front of the house of the latter. Next, he proceeded to the tea shop of P.W.16 Ramasamy and aimed at him. When this witness ran away he fired a shot at him. The bullets hit P.W.2 Angammal a stranger waiting for the bus when she got afraid of the appellant and ran behind P.W.16 Ramasamy. The appellant then went to the house of P.W.7 Dhanavendran and fired a shot at this witness who was standing in front of his house. When he ran for safety the pellets hit P.W.3 Chinnammal another third party who happened to stand near P.W.7 Dhanavendran. She came there for work in the field of P.W.5 Saradhamani. When P.W.4 Somakkal came running and asked the appellant why he shot at P.W.3 Chinnammal the appellant pointed his gun towards her and released the trigger. P.W.4 Somakkal was hit by bullet on her back. On hearing the gun shot sounds deceased Janaki and her sister P.W.5 Saradhamani came out of their house. The appellant did not spare these two also. On the first shot Janaki fell down dead. On the next firing this witness sustained bullet injuries. 31. When P.W.6 Subbammal shouted the appellant ran away. P.W.7 Dhanavendran and his father chased and caught hint. P.W.7 Dhanavendran brought the appellant to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital in a van along with the other injured. At 4.00 p.m. P.W.9 Doctor examined him and found simple injuries. On the next firing this witness sustained bullet injuries. 31. When P.W.6 Subbammal shouted the appellant ran away. P.W.7 Dhanavendran and his father chased and caught hint. P.W.7 Dhanavendran brought the appellant to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital in a van along with the other injured. At 4.00 p.m. P.W.9 Doctor examined him and found simple injuries. The Doctor was informed that he had sustained the injuries when people who ran pushed him down at 2.00 p.m. on that day in the scene place. The Doctor also found that this appellant had consumed alcohol. 32. As per the prosecution version there was enmity between Venkatarama Gounder the father of the appellant and P.W.16 Ramasamy. There was also strained relationship between Venkatarama Gounder and Veerabathira Gounder. Deceased Janaki, P.W.4 Somakkal, P.W.5 Saradhamani, P.W.6 Subbammal and P.W.7 Dhanavendran are the members of the family of Veerabathira Gounder. The father of the appellant had also ill-feeling against P.W.1 Livingston and his brother P.W.15 Albert. This enmity is stated to be the reasons for this young man going on a rampage on that afternoon. 33. P.W.2 Angammal and P.W.3 Chinnammal are independent witnesses who had also received bullet injures because they happened to be there at that time. There is no reason for not accepting their versions. 34. Besides, it is the evidence of P. W.22 Inspector that on 11. 1984 at 8.30 p.m. he recovered M.O.I Moped, M.O.2 series parts of D.B. gun, and M.O.17 series six empty cartridges near the place where Janaki was lying dead. 35. P.W.16 Ramasamy has given at the place of occurrence itself Ex.P.29 report at about 3.30 p.m. on that day narrating how the appellant fired at the abovesaid injured witnesses and deceased Janaki. He also mentions about P.W.7 Dhanavendran catching the appellant after chase. P.W.19Village Administrative Officer who recorded the complaint states that at 2.45 p.m. P.W.16 Ramasamy came to his house and informed about the incident. Thereafter he proceeded to the scene place and saw Janaki lying dead there at 3.30 p.m. Then he recorded Ex.P-29 complaint. This was registered at the Police Station at 7.00 p.m. The learned senior counsel for the appellant sought to argue that Ex.D-2 the statement of P.W.1 Livingston recorded by P. W.17 Head Constable in the Hospital is anterior in point of time and hence it is the real F.I.R. in this case. This was registered at the Police Station at 7.00 p.m. The learned senior counsel for the appellant sought to argue that Ex.D-2 the statement of P.W.1 Livingston recorded by P. W.17 Head Constable in the Hospital is anterior in point of time and hence it is the real F.I.R. in this case. He pointed out that as per this complaint he was shot at 1.00 p.m. on 11. 1984 while he was taking his bath in Samanna Gounder garden near his house. But a perusal of this document indicates that this was recorded only at 5.00 p.m. while Ex.P-29 complaint was recorded by P.W.19 Village Administrative Officer at about 3.30 p.m. on that day. In any event since the appellant is stated to have chased and shot at persons in three places the discrepancy in time and of the scene place in Ex.P-29 and Ex.D-2 is not of much significance. The learned defence counsel further contended that Ex.P-29 does not recite what was the specific information provided by P.W.16 Ramasamy, and the narration of the incident in this complaint regarding the sustaining of injuries by P.Ws.1 to 5 given by P.W.19 Village Administrative Officer is only hearsay. The absence of any reference to the broken parts of M.O.2 D.B. gun in this complaint was also commented upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. However, we are inclined to hold that in view of the overwhelming evidence against the appellant herein the omissions and discrepancies put forward on behalf of the appellant are immaterial. And the factors indicated above positively prove beyond the possibility of any doubt that on that afternoon the appellant not only shot dead Janaki, but also fired at P.Ws.1 to 5 with D.B. gun (M.O.2 series) and caused gun shot injuries to them. 36. Exs.P-39 to P-44, D-5 to D-12 and M.O.31 series photographs show the damages caused to the house. When examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. the appellant has stated that on 11. 1984 the family members of Veerabathira Gounder had pelted stones and damaged his house when he was inside. They also beat him. His mother took him to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimba-tore. While he was returning from the hospital after taking treatment Police took him into custody. When examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. the appellant has stated that on 11. 1984 the family members of Veerabathira Gounder had pelted stones and damaged his house when he was inside. They also beat him. His mother took him to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimba-tore. While he was returning from the hospital after taking treatment Police took him into custody. On the basis of the abovesaid materials the learned senior counsel for the appellant wanted to spell out that perhaps the appellant acted in the exercise of his right of private defence of person and property when the family members of Veerabathira Gounder surrounded his house and attacked. On a careful consideration of the arguments, we are unable to accept this contention. The correctness of the findings of the trial court which are substantiated by consistent and convincing evidence, on this day light occurrence, cannot be challenged. 37. However, there is another important aspect of the case about which we shall deal now. As per the Birth Register extract filed by the appellant he was born on 2. 1968. The occurrence took place on 11. 1984. Soon the date of occurrence the appellant was aged 16 years and 9 months. He was convicted on 13. 1986 on which date he had completed 18 years 1 month and 13 days. Dr.Uma Rani, Radiologist in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore who has deposed as Court Witness No.1 states that on 22. 1985 she examined the appellant and issued Ex.C-1 certificate stating that his age was above 18 years and below 20 years. Ex.C-2 (6 numbers) series are the Skiagrams. Ex.C-3 is her working sheet. 38. The occurrence in this case took place on 11. 1984 which is anterior to the coming into force of the Juvenile Justice Act 53 of 1986. The said Act came into force on 10. 1986. Prior to the advent of the said Act the Tamil Nadu Children Act 4 of 1920 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 37 of 1958 was in force to provide for the trial of youthful offenders and young persons. Sec.3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Children Act defines a young person as one who is fourteen years of age or upwards and under the age of eighteen years. Sec.3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Children Act defines a young person as one who is fourteen years of age or upwards and under the age of eighteen years. As per Sec.3(3) “youthful offender” means any person who has been convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment and who at the time of such conviction was under the age of eighteen years. Sec.22 of the Act reads that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law on child or young person shall be sentenced to death, or imprisonment or committed to prison in default of payment of a fine or in default of furnishing security: Provided that a young person maybe sentenced to imprisonment or committed to a prison as aforesaid where the Court certifies that he is of so unruly or of so depraved a character that he is not a fit person to be sent to a senior approved school and that none of the other methods in which the case may legally be dealt with is suitable. And under Sec.23(1) where any person who, in the opinion of the Court before which he is charged, is twelve years of age or upwards but less than eighteen years of the age, is convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment, the court may, in addition to or in lieu of sentencing him according to law to any other punishment, order that he be sent to a senior approved school. In view of these provisions it is evident that the appellant herein cannot be sentenced to imprisonment in case he is entitled to the beneficial provisions of this Act 4of 1920. 39. The trial court proceeded on the basis that as the appellant was a major who had completed 18 years of age during trial, he was governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure only. It has also stated that it has been so decided in Ravi v. State, 1985 M.LJ. (Crl.) 111. A single Judge of this Court has laid down that the point of time for reckoning whether a person is a juvenile or child is the time of conviction and not the time of commission of the offence. It has also stated that it has been so decided in Ravi v. State, 1985 M.LJ. (Crl.) 111. A single Judge of this Court has laid down that the point of time for reckoning whether a person is a juvenile or child is the time of conviction and not the time of commission of the offence. Save in the cases covered by Secs.82 and 83 of the Penal Code, the fact that a person accused of an offence was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence or crime has no relevance when he ceased to be a juvenile at the time he is put on trial for the offence alleged against him. The result is, the trial in such a case has to be proceeded with under the ordinary procedural law, though it is open to the trial court to consider in the event of conviction whether the same punishment as imposed on the adults should be awarded to the quondam juvenile. Mr.B.Sriramulu, the learned Public Prosecutor also drew our attention to the decision in Public Prosecutor v. Venkatasubramanyam, 1941 M.W.N. (Crl.) 2, where a Division Bench of this Court has also held that the point of time which is material in considering whether an offender is a young person as defined in the Children Act 4 of 1920 or not, is the time at which the sentence is to be pronounced and not the time of the commission of the offence. There could be no dispute that as per the two decisions cited above the appellant would be governed only by the ordinary procedural law since on 13. 1986 the date of conviction he was aged 18 years, 1 month and 13 days old. .40. But the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that regarding the procedure to be followed for the trial the age of the accused on the date of commission of the offence was the criteria and not the age at the time of conviction. In support of his contention he cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1057: 1982 Crl.L.J. 294; (1982)2 S.C.C. 202 : 1982 S.C.C. (Crl.) 296. Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1984S.C. 237:1984Crl..L.J. 168:1984 S.C.C. (Crl.) 478 and Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1329. In support of his contention he cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1057: 1982 Crl.L.J. 294; (1982)2 S.C.C. 202 : 1982 S.C.C. (Crl.) 296. Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1984S.C. 237:1984Crl..L.J. 168:1984 S.C.C. (Crl.) 478 and Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1329. In the first decision the Supreme Court has laid down that under the Rajasthan Children Act 16 of 1970 the relevant date for the applicability of the said Act is the date on which the offence takes place. Children Act was enacted to protect young children from the consequences of their criminal acts on the footing that their mind at that age could not be said to be mature for imputing mens rea as in the case of an adult. This being the intendment of the Act, a clear finding has to be recorded that the relevant date for applicability of the Act is the date on which the offence takes place. It is quite possible that by the time the case comes up for trial, growing in age being an involuntary factor, the child may have ceased to be a child. Therefore, Secs.3 and 26 became necessary. Both the sections clearly point in the direction of the relevant date for the applicability of the Act as the date of occurrence. In the second citation it was unquestionably established on unassailable evidence that on the date of the offence, the appellant was aged between 16 and 17 years. Held: He was, therefore, a juvenile delinquent. The learned Magistrate could not have committed his case to the Court of Session. Only an enquiry could have been held against him as provided in Sec.25 of the West Bengal Children Act, 30of 1959 and unless the case of the appellant falls within the proviso to Sec.24(2), he could not be sentenced to suffer imprisonment. Therefore, the entire trial of the appellant is without jurisdiction and is vitiated. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for having committed an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and sentence for imprisonment for life imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court are unsustainable and they must be set aside. Therefore, the entire trial of the appellant is without jurisdiction and is vitiated. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for having committed an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and sentence for imprisonment for life imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court are unsustainable and they must be set aside. In the third citation the only question for consideration was whether the appel-lant who was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sec.302, I.P.C. should have been treated as a "child" within the meaning of Sec.2(4) of the U.P. Children Act, 1951 and sent to an approved school for detention therein till he attains the age of 18 years instead of being sentenced to undergo imprisonment in Jail. Held: He ought to have been treated as a child within the meaningofSec.2(4)of the U.P.Children Act,1951 and dealt with under Sec.29 of the Act." 41. In Jayakumar v. State, 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 592, the appellant was a juvenile both on the day of the occurrence and on the day he was brought before the learned Magistrate but he had completed 18, on the day when the trial actually commenced. Padmini Jesudurai, J. after noticing the difference in the provisions, between the Tamil Nadu Children Act and similar Acts in other States. Regarding the crucial date, should it be the date of offence or date of conviction, held that once a Magistrate, on an enquiry under Sec.37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Children Act declared the age of the appellant to be below 18, he could be dealt with only under the provisions of the Act throughout. The Act does not contemplate a change in thesituation depending upon whether or not the accused completes 18 during the pendency of the trial. If on the date when the Magistrate determines his age he is found to he either a ‘child’ or a ‘young person’, he would continue to be so, until the conclusion of the trial and the sentence to be imposed on him would depend upon the other provisions of the Act. In Dhanapal v. State, 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 73, one of us (Arunachalam, J.) has held that declaration made by a Magistrate after due enquiry under Sec.37 of the Tamil Nadu Children Act cannot be invalidated by subsequent proof that the age had not been correctly stated to court. In Dhanapal v. State, 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 73, one of us (Arunachalam, J.) has held that declaration made by a Magistrate after due enquiry under Sec.37 of the Tamil Nadu Children Act cannot be invalidated by subsequent proof that the age had not been correctly stated to court. After the coming into force of the Juvenile Justice Act, the date of commission of the offence is the criterion and not the date of conviction, and the age prescribed is 16 years and below, we would reiterate the observations made in Dhanapal v. State, 1991 L. W. (Crl) 73, extracted hereunder, on the onerous duty cast on the prosecution, defence and the court: “Before parting with this case, it must be stated that the prosecution as well as the defence owe a duty to diligently place before the court of first instance all the available evidence to facilitate declaration of age by the court be it under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Children Act, since repealed, or under the provisions of the current Juvenile Justice Act. One cannot overlook that the community interest would require criminals to suffer legal penalty for the offence committed by them and cannot be allowed to escape the clutches of law, on an unduly lenient finding as to age; at the same time it cannot also be overlooked that the benefits of this social legislation cannot be denied to persons, who really deserve it, they being juveniles. A heavy responsibility is cast on the courts to hold a proper inquiry before the age of the person brought before it, is presumed or declared since such declaration or presumption has to be deemed to be final once conclusion is arrived at, that inquiry had been duly made.” 42. In any event under Art.20(1) of the Constitution of India, no person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. So, we are of the view that the appellant herein could have been dealt with only under Sec.23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Children Act which was in force on 11. 1984, the date of commission of the offence. So, we are of the view that the appellant herein could have been dealt with only under Sec.23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Children Act which was in force on 11. 1984, the date of commission of the offence. And under Sec.22 of the said Act sans proviso, he could not have been sentenced to imprisonment and any sentence of imprisonment awarded as per the law on the date of conviction, is evidently violative of Art.20(1) of the Constitution. 43. The penal pharmacopea of India, in tune with the reformatory strategy, currently prevalent in civilised criminology, has to approach the child offender not as a target of harsh punishment but of humane nourishment. The Children Act as well as the Juvenile Justice Act treat the delinquent children/juveniles as a special class and provide special procedure for enquiry in respect of charges levelled against them. Even if those charges are established, a very liberal approach has been provided in respect of punishment for such offences. Different sections put a strict bar on the child/ juvenile being sent to jail custody either before an enquiry or after the conclusion of the enquiry in respect of the offence alleged or proved to have been committed. Even if such a child has committed a murder, in view of Sec.22, neither he can be sentenced to death nor to imprisonment. It is true that in many cases as in the present one, the offences committed by such delinquent children may be shocking to the conscience and their conduct and behaviour may be abhorring but Sec.22 is quite conscious of such situations. Still it provides for keeping the delinquent child/juvenile accused of such serious offences in safe custody at the place ordered by the State Government. This benefit has to be extended not only to an accused who is a child/juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence and has continued as such till the conclusion of the enquiry, but even to an accused who has ceased to be a child/juvenile during the pendency of the enquiry. 44. This benefit has to be extended not only to an accused who is a child/juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence and has continued as such till the conclusion of the enquiry, but even to an accused who has ceased to be a child/juvenile during the pendency of the enquiry. 44. As per Sec.23(1) of the Children Act, where any person who is less than eighteen years of age, is convicted of an offence punishable with impris-onment, he could be sent to a senior approved school and under Sec.24(a) the order in pursuance of which the youthful offender is to be detained in the senior approved school shall not in any case extend beyond the time when the youthful offender will attain theage of twenty-one years. So the present appellant having been born on 2. 1968 could not now be sent to any senior approved school. In Jayendra v. State of U.P., 1982 Crl.L.J. 1000, the accused sentenced to imprisonment for offence committed during his childhood was 23 years old when his appeal was heard by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that the accused should be released forthwith as he neither could be imprisoned in view of the Sec.2 of the U.P. Children Act nor could be sent to approved school, being more than 18 years. The Supreme Court while upholding the conviction, quashed the sentence imposed upon the erst while juvenile. 45. In the result, we uphold the conviction passed by the trial Court on the charges. However, we quash the sentence of imprisonment upon him. We also direct that the bail bond shall stand cancelled.