J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals arise out of one and common judgment and order. Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993 which is hereinafter referred to as Appeal No. 1 is filed by the original accused persons; whereas Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1993, which is hereinafter referred to as Appeal No. 2 is filed by the State for enhancement. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the material and relevant facts of the present case are the appellants of Appeal No. 1 are the original accused persons and respondent is the State of Gujarat; whereas, respondents in Appeal No. 2 are original accused persons who are hereinafter referred to as accused Nos. 1 and 2, for the sake of convenience and brevity. ( 3 ) THE accused persons were sent up for trial, before the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha, at Himatnagar, in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1992 for offences under Secs. 302 read with S. 34, I. P. C. and S. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, in that, it was alleged that on 18-3-1992 at about 11-15 p. m. deceased Popat Dhulaji who was standing along with others near Holi fire, at that time, one boy told him that they are called by the accused persons. Therefore, the deceased went to the place known as Intwada (brickyard) and there, accused No. 2 caught hold of the deceased and accused No. 1 inflicted a knife blow from the back portion of the deceased which culminated into death of Popat Dhulaji. It was the prosecution case that both the accused persons had formed a common intention to commit intentional murder of the deceased on account of the fact, the deceased had scolded and rebuked accused No. 2 Jagdish for keeping illicit relationship with one school girl Gita. The incident just occurred near the Holi fire on Holi day in village Piplodi, of Vijaynagar taluka of Sabarkantha District. ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. The incident just occurred near the Holi fire on Holi day in village Piplodi, of Vijaynagar taluka of Sabarkantha District. ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, prosecution in support of the charge, relied on the following 11 prosecution witnesses : ( 21 ) IT was also contended relying on the Honble Apex Court decision in Sunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2136 that the accused persons can be held guilty under S. 304-I. It was contended that in that case, the accused was an old man at the time of appeal before the Honble Supreme Court and in view of the advanced age of the accused, the sentence to the period already undergone was found sufficient. The said decision is, also, obviously not applicable to the facts of the present case. The earlier judgment is relied on, on the ground that benefit should be given to the young people whereas, the subsequent decision is relied on, on the ground that even old persons can be given benefit. We may state that age of the offender plays role only after conviction is recorded and when the Court imposes sentence. In the present case, we have, without any hesitation or doubt, found that the conviction of the accused persons under S. 302 read with S. 34 is amply justified and when the offenders are found guilty for the offence under S. 302, the choice of sentence is circumscribed. The minimum sentence under S. 302 is life imprisonment. Therefore, in our opinion, the age can play role only when we have to consider sentencing of offender. It hardly matters when we have to consider the offence itself. ( 22 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellants-accused has also relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Guljar Hussain v. State of U. P. , AIR 1992 SC 2027 . In para 4 of this decision, it is clearly observed that in view of the pleadings, no offence was established under S. 302. It is also further observed that the Court has considered the proved facts. So, it was decided in the light of the facts of that case wherein intentional killing was not proved beyond doubt; whereas, in the present case, the facts situation is diametrically opposite to the proposition canvassed before us. That decision is also, therefore, of no avail. It is also further observed that the Court has considered the proved facts. So, it was decided in the light of the facts of that case wherein intentional killing was not proved beyond doubt; whereas, in the present case, the facts situation is diametrically opposite to the proposition canvassed before us. That decision is also, therefore, of no avail. ( 23 ) IN view of entire conspectus of testimonial collections and documentary evidence and the relevant proposition of law, we are satisfied that Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993 is required to be dismissed; whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1993 at the instance of the State for enhancement under S. 377 of the Code is required to be allowed. ( 24 ) IN the result, the accused persons are held guilty for offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and conviction of accused No. 1 Dinesh under S. 135 of the Bombay Police Act is confirmed and after hearing learned Advocate for the accused, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, minimum sentence of four months R. I. as prescribed, is awarded to accused No. 1 without disturbing amount of fine awarded by the trial Court. ( 25 ) THE appeal of the State is allowed; whereas the appeal of the accused shall stand dismissed. Bails were not granted to the accused. Therefore, they will continue to serve out the enhanced sentence imposed by us. Substantive sentence in respect of accused No. 1 shall run concurrently. .