Judgment A.M. KAPADIA. J.:- Challenge in this appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code, for short), is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 19-3-2004 rendered in Sessions Case No. O5/2001 (1/2000) by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Sirohi. . 2. By the impugned judgment and order, appellant No. 1 Sikander Khan (A-l for short), has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 352 of IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to one year imprisonment under Section 302, IPC: seyen years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in.default of payment of fine one year imprisonment: Under Section 307, IPC, one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine one year imprisonment under Section 324, IPC and one month R.I. under Section 352, IPC, whereas Appellant No.2 Zahlr Abbas (for shortA-2) has been convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 and 352/34 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/in default one year imprisonment under Section 302/34, IPC, seven years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine one year imprisonment under Section 307/34, IPC, one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine one years imprisonment under Section 324/ 34, IPC and one month R.I. under Section 352/34, IPC. It is also ordered that sentences awarded to both the accused shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the FIR, and unfolded during trial is as under: 3.1 On 3-11-1999, Informant P.W. 3 Gopal Singh, submitted a written report to SHO PS Pal sri (M) at about 5.30 p.m., wherein it was inter alia alleged that on that day, when he was going near Mohabat Singhs STD Booth, he saw that his real brother Surender Singh was caught by A-2 Zaheer Abbas from backside and A-1 Sikander Khan had a knife in his hand. A-2 Zaheer Abbas asked his brother to kill Surender Singh by knife so A-I Sikander Khan gave a knife blow on the left side of the chest of Surender Singh, due to which blood came out and thereafter, he gave another blow on the left ribs of Surendra Singh. A-2 Zaheer Abbas asked his brother to kill Surender Singh by knife so A-I Sikander Khan gave a knife blow on the left side of the chest of Surender Singh, due to which blood came out and thereafter, he gave another blow on the left ribs of Surendra Singh. At that time, Ishwar Singh came to rescue him who was also caught by A-2 Zaheer Abbas and then A-2 Zaheer Abbas told his brother to stab Ishwar Singh also, so A-I Sikander Khan stabbed knife blow on Ishwar Singhs left ribs. Surendra Singhs the younger brother Inder Singh came from STD Booth, so he, Inder Singh and Champalal tried to escape and then A-1 Sikander Khan tried to inflict knife blow to Inder Singh also but he escaped else Champalal also might get sonie injury. At the relevant time, public assembled there and seeing them, A-1 Sikander Khan and his brother ran away from the place of occurrence. Act Sikander Khan was blowing the knife in his hand by saying that, he would kill anyone if anybody came near him. Surender Singh and Ishwar Singh were brought to hospital at Palari by complainant and Inder Singh, where Surender Singh was declared dead by the doctor and Ishwar Singh was referred to Sirohi hospital as he was serious and while they were going to Sirohi Ishwar Singh told that on that day at Posaliya. Market A-I Sikander and A-2 Zaheer Abbas were standing in the middle of the road with cycle. 3.2 So far as motive of crime on the part of accused is concerned, it is alleged by prosecution witnesses that complainant and Surender Singh were passing through the road on a tractor then complainant and Surender Singh asked the accused persons to leave the road side. On this, some altercation took place and accused persons then went to their houses and brought knife and gave blows of knife to kill them. 3.3 On the basis of aforesaid written report FIR No. 150/1999 was registered at PS Palsri (M), after lodging of the report, police registered the case against accused A-I under Sections 302.307.324 and 352, IPC and against A-2 under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 and 352/34. IPC. Investigation was commenced. 3.3 On the basis of aforesaid written report FIR No. 150/1999 was registered at PS Palsri (M), after lodging of the report, police registered the case against accused A-I under Sections 302.307.324 and 352, IPC and against A-2 under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 and 352/34. IPC. Investigation was commenced. 3.4 During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, held inquest on the dead body of deceased Surender Singh in the presence of Panchas and sent the dead body for autopsy, drawn Panch nama of the scene of occurrence, weapon used for commission of offence was recovered from the accused and other articles recovered from the place of occurrence were sent to FSL for its chemical analysis. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded. 3.5 On completion of investigation as sufficient incriminating evidence was found against accused persons, they were arrested and both the accused were charge-sheeted in the Court of learned JMFC. Sheoganj. District Sirohi. 3.6 As the offence punishable under Sec. 302. IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sirohi. 3.7 The learned Addl. Sessions Judge (the trial Court), to whom the case was made over for trial, framed charge against both the accused which was read and explained to them. 3.8 The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried therefore put to trial vide Sessions Case No. 05/2001 (1/2000). 3.9 To prove the culpability of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses including 4 eye-witnesses and relied on their oral testimony. The prosecution also produced number of documents which were relied upon during the course of investigation arid, therefore, they were exhibited and read in evidence. They were to prove the charge levelled against them. 3.10 The trial Court, thereafter recorded statements of accused under S. 313 of the Code, wherein also accused pleaded innocence and denied the case of prosecution in to and reiterated that a false case has been filed against them. In defence, they have examined two witnesses. 3.11 On appreciation, analysis and scrutiny of the evidence on record, trial Court came to the conclusion that homicidal death of Surender Singh has been proved and simi1arly injury caused to witnesses Ishwar Singh has also proved. In defence, they have examined two witnesses. 3.11 On appreciation, analysis and scrutiny of the evidence on record, trial Court came to the conclusion that homicidal death of Surender Singh has been proved and simi1arly injury caused to witnesses Ishwar Singh has also proved. It has also been relied upon by the trial Court A-I Sikander Khan is the author of the fatal injury caused to deceased Surender Singh by knife and also injury caused to P.W. 1 Ishwar Singh and A-2 Zaheer Abbas shared the common intention in the said act. therefore, complicity of A-1 for commission of offence under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 352. IPC and A-2 for committing offence under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 324/34 and 352/34. 3.12 On the aforesaid finding, the trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused to which the reference has been made in earlier paragraphs of this judgment, giving rise to this appeal. 4. Mr. Javed Moyal, learned counsel for both the accused submits that impugned order of conviction and sentence is illegal, unjust and improper and against evidence on record. So far as the evidence of three witnesses is concerned, in fact they are not eye-witnesses of the occurrence as they were not present at the place of occurrence but they, came later on after the occurrence was over and there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the trial Court has misread the evidence of prosecution witnesses and came to erroneous conclusion about the guilt of accused, therefore, the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing accused A-I for offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 352, IPC and A-2 under Sections 302/ 34, 307/34, 324/34 and 352/34, IPC deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing this appeal and thereby acquitting both the accused for the offences for which they. Were charge-sheeted. 5. So far as accused A-7 Zaheer Abbas is concerned, in the alternative it is submitted by Mr. Javed Moyal learned counsel for the appellants that trial against him vitiated as he was juvenile at the time of alleged incident. Accordingly to him, the date of incident is 3-11-1999 and when A-2 was examined under Section 313, of the Code on 1112-2004 his age has been shown to be below 18 years. Javed Moyal learned counsel for the appellants that trial against him vitiated as he was juvenile at the time of alleged incident. Accordingly to him, the date of incident is 3-11-1999 and when A-2 was examined under Section 313, of the Code on 1112-2004 his age has been shown to be below 18 years. The trial Court has given categorical finding vide order dated 25-8-2001 to the effect that on the date of incident, he was aged 16 years 4 months and 19 days being born on 4-7-1983, therefore. impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against A-2 is contrary to the provisions contained under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000 (the Act of 2000 for short). The trial Court after having held that A-2 was less than 18 years, he ought to have given the benefit under the Act of2000. It is further submitted that trial against juvenile has to be conducted by the Juvenile Board which can function to reform the accused. It is also urged by him that now A-2 has already undergone more than seven years of imprisonment, therefore, he should be set at liberty, he, therefore, urged to pass appropriate orders in this regard, in view of various pronouncements made by the Honble Supreme Court in this regard. 6. In support of the aforesaid statement he has relied upon the following judgments. (1) Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand. 2005 (SC) Cri LJ page 3091 para 35 and 37). (2) Babban Rai v. State of Bihar. 2008 (SC) Crl LJ page 1038 para 5). (3) Jameel v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cri LJ (SC) (page 1425 paras 13 & 15). (4) BijenderSingh v. State of Haryana, 2005 Cr LJ (SC) (page 2195 paras 23. 15 and 17). (5) Silak Ram v. State of Haryana, 2007 Cri W (SC) (Page 3760 para 5). (6) Ritesh Prem Goyal v. Senior Inspector of Police, Distt. Pune, 2008 Cri W (page 2118 paras 13 and 15) (Born). 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against both the accused• throughout. 15 and 17). (5) Silak Ram v. State of Haryana, 2007 Cri W (SC) (Page 3760 para 5). (6) Ritesh Prem Goyal v. Senior Inspector of Police, Distt. Pune, 2008 Cri W (page 2118 paras 13 and 15) (Born). 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against both the accused• throughout. According to him, there was intention as well as motive on the part of both the accused to kill the deceased and to cause injuries to the witnesses, therefore, the case of both the accused is punishable under Sec. 302, IPC and no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. He urged to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the impugned judgment and order and the proceedings recorded by the trial Court. We have also undergone through vital features of the case and the evidence on record, which is read and re-read by the learned counsel for the parties with reference to the reasonable probabilities of the case. 9. So far as homicidal death of deceased Surender Singh is concerned, prosecution has examined and relied upon the testimony of P.W.13 Dr. Hukum Chand Kumbhat. who has performed the post-postmortem on the dead body of deceased Surender Singh and has issued Post-mortem Report, which is on record as Ex. P-21. On conjoint reading of oral testimony of P.W. 13 and upon perusal of Postmortem Report, it is seen that he had noted two external injuries on the dead body of deceased and cause of death was excessive hemorrhage in left thoracic cavity leading to hemorrhagic shock, therefore, it is duly proved that deceased died homicidal death. The trial Court has also held that deceased died homicidal death. 10. Now, so far as the injuries sustained by witness P.W.1 Ishwar Singh is concerned, the prosecution has examined and relied upon the oral testimony of P.W. 14 Dr. Suresh Bhandari, who has examined P. W. 1 injured Ishwar Singh and issued certificate and he has also recorded the injury sustained by Ishwar Singh. P.W. 20 Dr. A. M. Kadri has performed the surgery of P.W.1 Ishwar singh, who also has testified that injury caused to injured P.W.1 Ishwar Singh was serious in nature as it was on his left rib. 11. P.W. 20 Dr. A. M. Kadri has performed the surgery of P.W.1 Ishwar singh, who also has testified that injury caused to injured P.W.1 Ishwar Singh was serious in nature as it was on his left rib. 11. So far as• the injuries sustained by witness P.W. 4 Champa Lal are concerned, the prosecution has examined and relied upon the oral testimony of P.W. 16 Dr. Anil Choudhary, who has examined P.W. 4 injured Champa Lal and issued certificate and he has also recorded the injury sustained by Champa Lal. 12. In view of aforesaid oral evidence of all the witnesses referred to above and injuries sustained to P.W.1 Ishwar Singh, offence was punishable under. Section 307, IPC whereas injuries sustained by P.W. 4 Champa Lal was punishable under Section 324, IPC. 13. Now the next question is that out of 60th the accused who was the author of fatal injuries caused to victim as well as injured Ishwar Singh and Champa Lal. In this connection, we shall first refer to the evidence of P.W.3 Gopal Singh, Informant, who lodged the FIR. In the oral testimony of P.W.3 Gopal Singh as well as in FIR which is on record as Ex. P-22 and in his evidence, he has narrated the similar version. 14. Prosecution, thereafter examined and relied upon the oral testimony of P.W.1 Ishwar Singh who is brother of deceased Surender Singh. He has also stated the similar version which has been stated by P.W. 3 Gopal Singh. 15. Prosecution, thereafter examined P.W. 2 Inder Singh brother of deceased Surender Singh. He has also stated similar version as stated which has been stated by P. W. 1 Ishwar Singh and P.W. 3 Gopal Singh. 16. Prosecution, thereafter examined P.W. 4 Champa Lal who was also injured witness. He has also stated similar version as stated which has been stated by P.W. 1 Ishwar Singh and P.W.3 Gopal Singh arid P.W.2 Inder Singh. 17. On reappraisal of evidence of above four witnesses, it cannot be gainsaid or it cannot be disputed that the incident has taken place and in said incident A-1 has inflicted knife blow to deceased Surendra Singh and has also cause injuries to remaining two witnesses Ishwar Singh and Champa Lal. 17. On reappraisal of evidence of above four witnesses, it cannot be gainsaid or it cannot be disputed that the incident has taken place and in said incident A-1 has inflicted knife blow to deceased Surendra Singh and has also cause injuries to remaining two witnesses Ishwar Singh and Champa Lal. Similarly A-2 has instigated A-1 and also caught hold of Ishwar Singh and A-1 stabbed Ishwar Singh, therefore, A-1 is the principal offender who has committed murder and caused grievous injuries to remaining two witnesses and A-2 has shared the common intention with him, therefore, according to us the complicity of both the accused for committing murder of Surender Singh as well as attempt to commit murder of Ishwar Singh and causing grievous injury to Champa Lal has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses. 18. Therefore, according to us, the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding of guilt of both the accused for committing offences for which they were charged. 19. Now, we have to examine the alternative submission of Mr. Javed Moyal, learned counsel for the appellants with regard to A-2 being juvenile at the time of committing of offence and if he was juvenile then he was to be dealt with as per the provisions contained under the Act of 2000. 20. In the case of Pratap Singh (2005 Cri W 3091) (supra) the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has ruled that the provisions of 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding in any Court/authority initiated under the Act of 1986 and is pending when the 2000 Act came into force and the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1-4-2001. 21. In view of this finding according to us there is no manner of doubt that on the day of offence accused was less than 18 years, therefore, he was juvenile within the definition and meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 2-K of the Act of 2000. 22. In this connection, it would be appropriate to have a close look at the relevant statutory provisions contained in the Juvenile justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. For the avowed object of providing the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication of certain matters relating to, and disposition of delinquent juveniles, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was enacted by Parliament. For the avowed object of providing the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent juveniles and for the adjudication of certain matters relating to, and disposition of delinquent juveniles, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was enacted by Parliament. Thereafter, Parliament has thought it expedient to re-enact the existing law relating to juveniles bearing in mind the standards prescribed in the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990), and all other relevant international instruments, the present Act was enacted by the Parliament. Section 2(k) defines "juvenile" or child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. Section 4 of the Act discusses about the Juvenile Justice Board, which carves out an exception and states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for a district or a group of districts specified in the notification, one or more Juvenile Justice Boards for exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred or imposed on such Boards in relation to juveniles in conflict with law under this Act. Section 10 of the Act talks about apprehension of juvenile in conflict with law, which says that as soon as a juvenile in inflict with law is apprehended by police, he shall be placed under the charge of the special juvenile police unit or the designated police officer who shall immediately report the matter to a member of the Board. Section 14 of the Act empowers the Juvenile Justice Board to make inquiry regarding Juvenile. It says that where a juvenile having been charged with the offence is produced before a Board, the Board shall hold the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of this Act and may make such order in relation to the juvenile as it deems fit. Section 16 of the Act however mandates that certain orders cannot be passed against juvenile. It says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security. It says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security. Section 17 of the Act clearly stipulates that a proceeding under Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not competent against Juvenile. Section 18 of the Act forbids any joint proceeding of juvenile and person not a juvenile. 23. Applying the principle enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Singh (2005 Cri W 3091) (supra) referred to above to the facts of the instant case, it has been held by the trial Court that on the date of incident A-2 Zaheer Abbas was 16 years. 4 months and 19 days as he was born on 4-7-1983, therefore, he was juvenile within the meaning and definition of the Act of 2000 and had not completed 18 years of age on 1-4-2001. therefore, he is entitled to get benefit of Act of 2000. We are of the view that the impugned order and judgment passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencingA-2 Zaheer Abbas for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34. 324/34 and 352/34, IPC deserves to be quashed and set side. However, since the challenge to the order of conviction being not pressed, we quash the sentence awarded to A-2. Since A-2 is a major on this date, there is no question of referring A-2 to Juvenile Board. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by A-I Sikander Khan is dismissed and accordingly judgment and order of conviction and sentences recorded against him is affirmed and maintained whereas appeals filed by A-2 Zaheer Abbas is partly allowed qua sentence only. Consequently, while upholding the order of conviction we quash and set aside the sentence awarded to him. A-2 Zaheer Abbas is on bail, therefore, no further order is required to be passed in this regard. 25. The appeal is accordingly disposed of to the aforesaid extent. Order accordingly.