JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21.12.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh. While the appellants- Kishna Ram and Birbal Ram have preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 29/1999 aggrieved by the said judgment convicting them for the offence under section 302/34 and 302 Indian Penal Code respectively and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, the other Appeal being.D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 305/1999 has been filed by the State against acquittal of the accused-respondents-Sohan Ram and Chokha Ram of offence under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Both the appeals are being decided by the common judgment. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed during trial is that in village Lakhansar, three brothers viz., PW-1 Shravan Ram, PW-3 Mukna Ram and Manphool Ram (deceased) lived. Shravan Ram and Mukna Ram were living separately from Manphool Ram and their father. Appellants were inimical to the deceased-Manphool Ram, as he alleged to have teased their sister married in village Jalabsar. On 28.8.1997 at about 3.00 a.m., PW-1 Shravan Ram lodged an oral FIR at Police Station, Sri Doongargarh stating inter alia that on 27.8.1997, his brother Manphool had gone to the field. At about 8.00 or 9.00 p.m., he had gone to answer the call of nature. When he was at the outskirts of the village, he was attracted by the cries of his brother. He rushed to the place of occurrence and found accused-Birbal Ram, Sohan Ram, Chokha Ram and Kishna Ram S/o Sohan Ram beating Manphool Ram. Appellant-Birbal Ram was armed with 'kulhari' and rest of the accused persons with 'lathis'. At that time, PW-2 Dungar Ram also arrived from his field. Seeing them, accused persons took their heels, leaving their brother in a wounded condition. At that time, his brother Mukna Ram also arrived. On enquiry, it was disclosed by his injured brother that he was assaulted by Birbal Ram, Sohan Ram, Chokha Ram and Kishna Ram armed with 'kulhari' and 'lathis'. Manphool Ram was removed to the hospital in a tractor, where the doctor declared him dead. On this information, police registered a case for the offence under sections 341, 302/34 Indian Penal Code and proceeded with investigation. The police inspected the site and prepared the site memo. Manphool Ram was removed to the hospital in a tractor, where the doctor declared him dead. On this information, police registered a case for the offence under sections 341, 302/34 Indian Penal Code and proceeded with investigation. The police inspected the site and prepared the site memo. The dead body was sent for post-mortem The autopsy was conducted by PW-6 Dr. Ghanshyam Tanwar, who noticed the following injuries vide Ex.P/8 : "1. One abrason on the tip of nose covered with blood clot size 1 x 1 cm; 2. Incised wound on the Rt. frontal region 5 x 1.5 cm and bone deep; 3. Lacerated wound on the Rt. parietal region 3 x 0.5 cm x bone deep; 4. One incised wound on the Rt. pinna on top 2.5 cm x full thickness; 5. Two incised wounds on the Rt. occipital region 1 cm apart measuring 5 x 1 cm x bone deep and 4.5 x 0.8 cm and bone deep; 6. Extensive multiple bruise present on whole of the back of chest and Rt. flank, reddish colour; 7. Reddish multiple bruise on the Rt. buttock irregular size; 8. Reddish bruise on the Rt. thigh measuring 15 x 5 cm; 9. One reddish bruise on the Rt. opliteal tossa 9 x 4 cm; 10. Abrasion on the Rt. leg, covered with blood clot on Rt. leg lower part 1x1xcm; 11. One reddish bruise on the Lt. upperarm mid part size 7 x 4 cm." 3. As' per the doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death was intracerebral and subdural haemorrhage caused by head injury. 4. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against appellants and Sohan Ram and Chokha Ram (since acquitted) for the offence under sections 341, 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case adduced oral and documentary evidence. Appellants denied the correctness of the evidence appearing against them in their statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the learned trial Court mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-1 Shravan Ram corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned trial Court found the prosecution case proved as against appellants-Birbal Ram and Kishna Ram and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them in the manner noticed above. However, the trial Judge acquitted Sohan Ram and Chokha Ram. 5. The learned trial Court found the prosecution case proved as against appellants-Birbal Ram and Kishna Ram and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them in the manner noticed above. However, the trial Judge acquitted Sohan Ram and Chokha Ram. 5. Assailing the conviction, it is contended by the learned counsel that the trial Court has committed error in relying on the testimony of PW-1 Shravan Ram and PW-2 Dungar Ram, as they are not only inimical towards the accused persons but also interested witnesses, as such, the version given by them is highly doubtful, apart from the fact that they are the chance witnesses. It is further submitted that appellant-Kishna Ram was of 17 years of age at the time of arrest and, therefore, in view of Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000', he may be given the benefit of the same. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 6. We have closely scrutinised and evaluated the prosecution evidence and considered the rival contentions. PW-1 Shravan Ram has reiterated what he stated in the FIR PW-2 Dungar Ram has stated that at about 8.00 p.m., while he was returning from the field at the outskirts of the village, he witnessed that appellants-Birbal Ram, Kishna Ram and acquitted accused persons Sohan Ram and Chokha Ram were assaulting Manphool Ram. While Birbal Ram was armed with a 'kulhari', all the other three were with 'lathis'. He gave a 'lalkara' on which all the accused persons escaped from the place of occurrence. The injured disclosed to him that he was being assaulted by accused-Birbal Ram, Sohan Ram, Chokha Ram and Kishna Ram. PW-3 Mukna Ram has stated that he was informed by some village boys that Manphool was being assaulted. When he reached on the spot, he found appellants armed with deadly weapons at the place of incident. 7. The criticism levelled against the statement of PW-1 Shravan Ram and PW-2 Dungar Ram is that they are chance witnesses. They are also interested witnesses and, as such, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. When he reached on the spot, he found appellants armed with deadly weapons at the place of incident. 7. The criticism levelled against the statement of PW-1 Shravan Ram and PW-2 Dungar Ram is that they are chance witnesses. They are also interested witnesses and, as such, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. It is held by the Apex Court in Bahal Singh v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1976 SC 2032 that the testimony of a chance witness, if happens to be the relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused, must be viewed with suspicion. However, such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does require cautious and close scrutiny. 8. It is no doubt that as far as PW-1 Shravan Ram and PW-2 Dungar Ram are concerned, they are chance witnesses. As far as PW-3 Mukna Ram is concerned, he is not an eye-witness. As per his own saying, he reached on the spot after hearing the news from some village boys. As far as dying declaration is concerned, the learned trial Court itself has discarded it for the reason that there is a material discrepancy on the point if the victim was in a position to speak while he was in village Lakhansar. As far as participation of Birbal Ram in the crime is concerned, statement of two witnesses PW-1 Shravan Ram and PW-2 Dungar Ram finds full corroboration from the medical evidence. Appellant-Birbal Ram was armed with a 'kulhari'. It is alleged that he dealt blows on deceased-Manphool Ram by 'kulhari'. There are as many as four injuries on the person of deceased-Manphool Ram caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 2, is an incised wound on the right frontal region. Injury No. 4 is an incised wound on the right pinna on top and injury No. 5 is two incised wound on the right occipital region. All these injuries have been attributed to appellant-Birbal Ram, as the same have been caused by sharp edged weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was head injury. The statement further finds corroboration from the evidence of recovery of blood stained 'kulhari'. Appellant-Birbal Ram was arrested on 2.9.1997 vide Ex.P/13. Pursuant to the information given by him vide Ex.P/17, the blood stained 'kulhari' was recovered vide Ex.P/18. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was head injury. The statement further finds corroboration from the evidence of recovery of blood stained 'kulhari'. Appellant-Birbal Ram was arrested on 2.9.1997 vide Ex.P/13. Pursuant to the information given by him vide Ex.P/17, the blood stained 'kulhari' was recovered vide Ex.P/18. The 'kulhari' was packed and sealed on the spot, PW-10 Tara Chand, investigating officer, has stated that he deposited article 'kulhari' in a sealed condition alongwith other articles with PW-9 Sugna Ram, malkhana incharge of the police station Sri Doongargarh. It is stated by PW-9 Sugna Ram that he received the 'kulhari' and other articles and made an entry in the malkhana register at item No. 292. It remained intact at the police station. On 15.9.1997, he delivered all those articles to PW-8 Hanuman Singh for delivery at the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is stated by PW-8 Hanuman Singh that after taking the letter from Superintendent of Police, Churu, he took the articles and delivered the same in the Forensic Science Laboratory. He also obtained the receipt at Ex.P/10 which shows that articles were received in a sealed condition. As per the FSL Report Ex.P/26, 'kulhari' was stained with blood of human origin. 9. Similar is the evidence against appellant-Kishna Ram. The post-mortem report Ex.P/8 shows that deceased-Manphool had sustained injuries by blunt object viz; lathi'. Appellant-Kishna Ram was arrested on 2.9.1997 vide Ex.P/16. In pursuance of the information given by him vide Ex.P/23, blood stained 'lathi' was recovered vide Ex.P/24. The 'lathi' was packed and sealed on the spot and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the FSL Report Ex.P/26, 'lathi' was found to be stained with blood of human origin. That apart, the blood found on the 'kulhari' as well as 'lathi' and the blood found on the clothes of the deceased have been found to be of the same group i.e. 'B' group. Thus, the statements of both the eye-witnesses viz; PW-1 Shravan Ram and PW-2 Dungar Ram finds corroboration from the other evidence, so far as the participation of accused-Birbal Ram and Kishna Ram in the crime is concerned. Thus, we are of the view that the learned Judge was right in convicting both the appellants for the offence under sections 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. 10. Thus, we are of the view that the learned Judge was right in convicting both the appellants for the offence under sections 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. 10. Dealing with the State Appeal against acquittal of accused-Sohan Ram and Chokha Ram, it is significant to notice that statements of both the chance witnesses referred to above, do not find corroboration from any other evidence. The 'lathis' have been recovered from Sohan Ram and Chokha Ram but no blood has been found thereon. Their conviction cannot be sustained solely on the evidence of chance witnesses. Thus, the learned trial Court has taken a reasonable view on proper appreciation of evidence. There are no substantial and compelling reasons to inference with the order of acquittal. 11. Appellant-Kishna Ram has filed an application under section 20 of the Act of 2000 stating inter alia that it is evident from the arrest memo Ex.P/16 that at the time of incident, he was 17 years and, as such, he is entitled to benefit of the same. 12. In the instant case, the incident took place in the year 1997 prior to coming into force of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 i.e. with effect from 1.4.2001. However, the benefit of the Act of 2000 can be extended to those juveniles also against whom the trial was pending in the Court other than the Juvenile Court. It will be convenient to read Section 20 of the Act of 2000 as follows : "20. Special provision in respect of pending cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any Court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that Court as if this Act had not been passed and if the Court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence." 13. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, a boy below the age of 16 years was considered as juvenile but under the Act of 2000, a boy or girl upto the age of 18 years has been considered as juvenile. Another significant change is with reference to the relevant date for considering the age of offender, which is the date of commencement of enquiry and not the date of incident. Thus, the case of appellant-Kishna Ram is required to be considered under the provisions of the Act of 2000. Section 15 of the Act of 2000 provides the categories of the orders that may be passed regarding juvenile. The relevant portion of Section 15 reads as follows : "15. Thus, the case of appellant-Kishna Ram is required to be considered under the provisions of the Act of 2000. Section 15 of the Act of 2000 provides the categories of the orders that may be passed regarding juvenile. The relevant portion of Section 15 reads as follows : "15. Order that maybe passed regarding juvenile.-(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if it so thinks fit, (a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or admonition following appropriate inquiry against and counselling to the parent or the guardian and the juvenile; (b) direct the juvenile to participate in group counselling and similar activities; (c) order the juvenile to perform community service; (d) order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile himself to pay a fine, if he is over fourteen years of age and earns money; (e) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or other fit person, on such parent, guardian or other fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any fit institution for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years; (g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home; (i) in the case of juvenile, over seventeen years but less than eighteen years of age for a period of not less than two years; (ii) in case of any other juvenile for the period until he ceases to be a juvenile; Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit. (2) The Board shall obtain the social investigation report on juvenile either through a probation officer or a recognised voluntary organisation or otherwise, and shall take into consideration the findings of such report before passing an order. (3) Where an order u/Cl. (d), or Cl. (e) or Cl. (f) of sub-section (1) is made, the Board, may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the juvenile and of the public, it is expedient so to do, in addition make an order that the juvenile in conflict with law shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not exceeding three years as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the juvenile in conflict with law : Provided that if at any time afterwards it appears to the Board on receiving a report from the probation officer or otherwise, that the juvenile in conflict with law has not been of good behaviour during the period of supervision or that the fit institution under whose care the juvenile was placed is no longer able or willing to ensure the good behaviour and well being of the juvenile it may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, order the juvenile in conflict with law to be sent to a special home. (4) The Board shall while making a supervision order under sub-section (3), explain to the juvenile and the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be under whose care the juvenile has been placed, the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to the juvenile, the parent guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer." Sub-clause (i) of Cl. (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act of 2000 deals with the case of juvenile above 17 years but less than 18 years of age. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 6, the powers conferred on the Board by or under the Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Session, when the proceeding comes before them in appeal, revision or otherwise. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 6, the powers conferred on the Board by or under the Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Session, when the proceeding comes before them in appeal, revision or otherwise. Thus, Section 15 provides that where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if it so thinks fit, may make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home in case of juvenile being above 17 but less than 18 years of age for a period of not less than two years and in case of any other juvenile for the period until he ceases to be a juvenile. Thus, a juvenile can be kept in a special home in case of his being above 17 years of age and less than 18 years of age only upto the age of 18 years. In the instant case, appellant-Kishna Ram was 17 years at the time of arrest, as such, now he must be 24 years of age. In view of this fact, he cannot be sent to a special home exercising the powers under section 15 of the Act. Thus, there is no merit in the application filed by the appellant-Kishna Ram under section 20 of the Act of 2000, which is rejected. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the accused-appellants-Kishna Ram and Birbal Ram stands dismissed. Appellant-Birbal Ram is in jail. He will serve but the remaining part of the sentence. Appellant-Kishna Ram is on bail. He will surrender before the trial Court to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The trial Court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against Kishna Ram and to send him to jail to serve-out the sentence awarded. The Appeal filed by the State against acquittal of Sohan Ram and Chokha Ram stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******