Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 337 (PAT)

Chhotai Singh v. State Of Bihar

2008-02-15

SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2008
Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh and Shailesh Kumar Sinha JJ. 1. All the three criminal appeals have been heard together because they arise out of same judgment/order of conviction/sentence dated 22.7.2003/23.7.2003 passed by 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 221/1995 (arising out of Bettiah P.S. Case No. 4/1994) whereby appellant, Chhotai Singh has been convicted under Section 364A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and has been awarded life imprisonment. The appellants of other two appeals have been convicted for the offence under Section 364A I.P.C and also awarded life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is based upon a written report of the informant, Pramod Kumar Saran (PW-2) lodged with the Bettiah Town Police Station on 6.1.1994 disclosing, inter alia, that he lives in the house of one Bhola Raut on rent and in the same premises he also runs cement shop. His son, Awadhesh Kumar Saran aged about 15 years and a student of Class-VIII was sitting in that shop on 16.7.1993 at 11:00 A.M. At that time Santosh Kumar Mishra (later treated as juvenile) appellant, Ravindra Kumar Prasad and appellant, Bablu @ Aurangjeb came to the shop and persuaded the victim boy Awadhesh Kumar Saran to close the shop and he proceeded with them. In spite of search in the town and in Gandak No. 2 (Colony) the victim boy could not be traced although all the relations were also contacted. The informant expressed suspicion that the three miscreants named above have made his son traceless with a view to realize money from the informant. He further disclosed that on 2.8.1993 he received a letter through post directing him to go to Motihari Jail gate with Rs. 5 Lakhs and meet one Rajdeo Giri, a representative of the kidnapper with a threat that the boy was in their custody and if any information would be given to the police then the boy would be killed. The informant alongwith some relations went to Motihari Jail gate on 4.8.1993 and met Rajdeo Giri. Rajdeo Giri and appellant, Chhotai Singh showed him clothes of his son and also a diary relating to the shop. The clothes were of the victim boy. The diary was given to the informant. On account of love for his son and on the advice of his relations the informant paid Rs. Rajdeo Giri and appellant, Chhotai Singh showed him clothes of his son and also a diary relating to the shop. The clothes were of the victim boy. The diary was given to the informant. On account of love for his son and on the advice of his relations the informant paid Rs. 55,000/- on 22.8.1993 to Rajdeo Giri and appellant, Chhotai Singh after going inside the jail gate and requested them to release his son. Rajdeo and appellant, Chhotai Singh assured that the boy would reach his residence by next evening. However, the victim boy never came back. The informant came to know that the two persons whom he had met in the jail were notorious criminals. He claimed that the three boys had knowingly with a view to realize money kidnapped his son and had sold his son in the hands of gang of Rajdeo Giri and Chhotai Singh. He expressed apprehension that his son might have been killed also. 3. After completing investigation police submitted charge-sheets against the appellants as well as Rajdeo Giri and Santosh Kumar Mishra on different dates. Proceeding against Santosh Kumar Mishra was separated as he was found to be a juvenile. It appears that Rajdeo Giri could not be put on trial because he chose to abscond. After cognizance the case of the appellants was committed to the court of sessions where they pleaded not guilty to the charges. After trial they have been convicted and sentenced by the judgment and order under appeal. The defence of the appellant appears to be simple denial of the allegations. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the charges has examined only three witnesses. PW-1, Chitrasen Pandit is maternal grandfather of the victim. He has admitted that he heard about the occurrence in the morning hours of 17.7.1993 i.e. next date of the occurrence from his daughter (mother of the victim, PW-3) and his son-in-law (father of the victim, PW-2) that his grand-child, Awadhesh Kumar Saran had been kidnapped by named accused, Santosh Kumar Mishra, Ravindra Kumar and Aurangjeb @ Bablu on 16.3.1993 at 11:00 a.m. He also learnt that the victim was persuaded to go with the accused persons on the plea of going to witness selection process of CRPF. He learnt that the victim closed the shop and handed over the keys to his mother and went with the accused persons but did not come back till evening hours or till the night and then his daughter and son-in-law came to make enquiries about Awadhesh from this witness. He has further deposed that his son-in-law and daughter went to search for the victim at the houses of the three named accused but those three were not available at their houses. He has deposed that after 3-4 days of the occurrence he met the three named accused and made enquiries from them. He was given the reply that the victim went with the named accused persons to Motihari and they had no knowledge as to where he went from that place but they further said that on money being spent his grandchild (Awadhesh) would come back. The witness enquired as to how much money has to be paid to get the boy back then the accused persons told him that infor mation would come to him in this regard. After 20-25 days, an envelope came at the residence of his son-in-law in which there was a direction to meet Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri in jail. Then his son-in-law with 2-3 persons went to Motihari Jail gate. There, Rajdeo Giri showed the shirt and pant and one small diary of Awadhesh and assured his son-in-law and others that the victim boy was in their captivity. A ransom of Rs. 5 Lakhs was demanded in the letter. Later his son-in-law arranged Rs. 55,000/- and paid it at the jail gate to appellant, Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri who told him that the victim boy would reach his home after 24 hours but the boy never came back. When the boy did not return, his son-in-law again went to Motihari Jail gate. Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri kept him under false hope for 3-4 months and thereafter his son-in-law lodged case because Awadhesh never came back. In dock, he identified Chhotai Singh and Ravindra Kumar but could not identify Aurangjeb @ Bablu. In cross-examination he clarified that he had not gone with his son-in-law and daughter to the houses of the named accused for the purpose of making enquiry. He had met them after 4-5 days in the children park in Gandak Colony. In dock, he identified Chhotai Singh and Ravindra Kumar but could not identify Aurangjeb @ Bablu. In cross-examination he clarified that he had not gone with his son-in-law and daughter to the houses of the named accused for the purpose of making enquiry. He had met them after 4-5 days in the children park in Gandak Colony. He has admitted that he went to Motihari Jail only when demand for money was made again. He has also replied that fathers of the three named accused used to work in the Gandak project. He has denied the suggestion that because he and the fathers of the three named accused were in the same department therefore he has given false evidence due to enmity. 5. PW-2, Pramod Kumar Saran is informant of this case and also father of the victim boy. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was living on rent in the house of Bhola M.P. in Jagjivan Nagar. On the date of occurrence i.e. 16th of July, 1993 he had gone to collect business dues (lahna) in the rural area. His wife and son, Awadhesh were at home. He had opened a cement shop in Jagjivan Nagar. At the time of occurrence his son, Awadhesh Kumar Saran was in the shop. Accused, Santosh Kumar Mishra, Ravindra Kumar and Bablu @ Aurangjeb came to his shop and met his son. They informed his son that recruitment of CRPF was going on and they should go to see the same. Those three accused were friendly to his son. His son disclosed the aforesaid facts to his mother and proceeded with the three named accused. His wife also saw his son going with the three named accused. According to this witness he came back after collecting business dues in the evening and saw the shop closed. His wife told him about the three accused persons taking his son to show recruitment of CRPF. When the boy did not return back till evening hours, they thought that he might have stayed in Gandak Colony at the place of his maternal grandfather. In the next morning they went to Gandak Colony but the boy was not there. He continued searching for the boy. On the Raksha Bandhan day of 1993 he received a letter informing him that his son was under captivity of letter writer. In the next morning they went to Gandak Colony but the boy was not there. He continued searching for the boy. On the Raksha Bandhan day of 1993 he received a letter informing him that his son was under captivity of letter writer. He was warned not to play any tricks and Rs. 5 Lakhs was demanded with a direction that he should go with that money to jail gate at Motihari and meet Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri. Thereafter, he went to jail gate with his relations. Inside the jail he met Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri. On enquiry from them about his son they showed him the clothes of his son and also a diary. That assured him that his son was under their captivity. Finally they agreed to release the boy on payment of Rs. 55,000/- He paid that amount to appellant, Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri and they assured that the boy would come back to his house during night time. When the boy did not come then he again met them and they made a further demand of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs but the informant refused to pay that amount. Ultimately when the boy did not come back then the informant gave intimation to the Bettiah town police station. He has proved the written information given to the police which is the basis of FIR, as Exhibit-1. He also produced two letters which he had received through post and they are marked as X and X-1 for identification. Photo copies of those letters are also marked for identification as X2 and X3. This witness identified all the three appellants in the dock. 6. In cross-examination, PW-2 has disclosed that his victim son had never gone alone in the town because he had recently returned from Calcutta and he was to be admitted in a local school and for that he had come back from Calcutta. He has also clarified that when the boy did not return in the night, in the morning, first his wife went to her fathers place and after a short while he also went there. He met his wife there and after some-time they went to house of accused, Bablu. At that time father of Bablu was employed in Gandak project. The witness was informed that Bablu was also traceless. He met his wife there and after some-time they went to house of accused, Bablu. At that time father of Bablu was employed in Gandak project. The witness was informed that Bablu was also traceless. He also went to houses of accused Ravindra Kumar and Santosh Kumar Mishra. Their houses were also in the same colony. The search lasted up to 12 in the noon. His wife was also with him. They searched at the houses of their relations also. He has clarified that on receipt of the letter he did not inform the police out of fear and went to jail after 2-3 days. His arrival was being awaited at the jail gate and the guard at the jail gate took him to accused, Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri without making any formal entry in any register. He was taken in a room by the side of the jail gate and there he met Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri. On the first occasion when he went to jail and met the two accused there, the amount of ransom could not be finalized. Thereafter also he received letters. He has claimed that he was given the diary of his son by Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri and he had shown it to two persons and also to police. He has explained that ultimately when his son was not released even after payment of money then he became helpless and then went to inform the police. He has fairly admitted that he had not seen his son going with the three named accused who had come to the shop and this part of the occurrence was disclosed to him by his wife. He has denied the suggestion that his father-in-law had dispute with the family of accused, Bablu @ Aurangjeb and Ravindra Kumar on account of distribution of oil and for that he has given false evidence. 6A. PW-3, Basanti Devi, is mother of the victim. She has fully supported the prosecution case and has disclosed that her son, Awadhesh Kumar Saran was selling cement in the shop at about 11:00 A.M. on 16.7.1993. The shop and her house are situated in the same building which they had taken on rent from Bhola MP. 6A. PW-3, Basanti Devi, is mother of the victim. She has fully supported the prosecution case and has disclosed that her son, Awadhesh Kumar Saran was selling cement in the shop at about 11:00 A.M. on 16.7.1993. The shop and her house are situated in the same building which they had taken on rent from Bhola MP. At that time Santosh Kumar Mishra, Bablu @ Aurangjeb and Ravindra Kumar came to the shop and took her son, Awadhesh with them for seeing recruitment of CRPF. Awadhesh closed the shop and came to handover the keys to her and told her the said fact. He also disclosed that all the three boys live near the house of his maternal grandfather and come regularly and he was going with them. She claimed that she saw them going and told them to return early. In the evening when her husband returned after collecting business dues then he inquired about Awadhesh and as to why the shop was closed. She disclosed that he had gone with the three named accused for witnessing CRPF recruitment. When the victim did not return in the evening then they thought that he might have stayed in the house of his maternal grandfather. Next day in the morning she went to her fathers place and learnt that Awadhesh had not gone there. She disclosed all the facts to her father. At that time her husband also arrived there and then she came back to her house. Her father and husband went in search of her son, Awadhesh to the houses of the three named accused and they learnt that those accused had not returned. The boy could not be located even at places of any of the relations. After 6-7 days her husband met the three accused and they told him that on spending money the boy will be found. Thereafter a letter was received on the day of Raksha Bandhan through which they had been called to Motihari Jail gate to meet Rajdeo Giri and Chhotai Singh. Her husband went to Motihari Jail gate with 2-3 persons. They demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs as ransom. The same amount was mentioned in the letter also. To prove their claim the two accused in the jail showed pant, shirt and a diary of cement shop to her husband and they convinced him that their son was taken captive by them. Her husband went to Motihari Jail gate with 2-3 persons. They demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs as ransom. The same amount was mentioned in the letter also. To prove their claim the two accused in the jail showed pant, shirt and a diary of cement shop to her husband and they convinced him that their son was taken captive by them. These facts, she learnt from her husband. Later Rs. 55 thousand was agreed as the ransom amount and was paid to Rajdeo Giri and Chhotai Singh. But in spite of their assurance the victim boy did not return. Later when her husband went again to Motihari Jail then they made a further demand of Rs. 2.5 Lacs but her husband informed them that he does not have such money. Ultimately, her husband filed the case at Bettiah Police Station. The witness identified, Ravindra Kumar and Bablu @ Aurangjeb in the dock. She did not identify Chhotai Singh. She has also clarified in cross-examination that her son never went to any place without asking her and had never gone to Motihari earlier. She has also stated that her son used to go for coaching and used to come back at 10:00/11:00 A.M. and the three named accused were his friends and used to come to meet him. Her son did not go to their places. Her son had no enmity with the three named accused and earlier he did not go to roam around with those three persons. Her son had come back from Calcutta three months earlier. And within last three months he had never gone to roam around anywhere and during this period no friend of his had come to visit him at his house. She has denied the suggestion that there was any enmity between the father of the accused persons and her father or that she had given false statements on the persuasion of her father. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that there is no direct evidence as to what happened to the victim boy after he had gone from his shop with Bablu @ Aurangjeb, Ravindra Kumar and Santosh Kumar Mishra nor there is any evidence as to where he was kept after kidnapping and what happened to him ultimately. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that there is no direct evidence as to what happened to the victim boy after he had gone from his shop with Bablu @ Aurangjeb, Ravindra Kumar and Santosh Kumar Mishra nor there is any evidence as to where he was kept after kidnapping and what happened to him ultimately. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants, Bablu @ Aurangjeb and Ravindra Kumar that even if the initial version in the FIR be accepted that being friends the victim boy had accompanied three named persons who were his friends for going to. see CRPF recruitment, there is no other material or incriminating circumstance to hold that he had been kidnapped by his friends and then handed over to gang of Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri as suspected or alleged in the FIR. On behalf of the appellant, Chhotai Singh it has been submitted that he was admittedly in jail custody and but for the claim by the informant, PW-2 that his sons clothes and diary were shown by Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri and they demanded initially Rs. 5 lacs as ransom and further claim of PW-2 that he paid Rs. 55 thousand to them but still the boy did not return as promised by these two accused, there is no material to sustain the charge under Section 364A of the IPC read with Section 120B of the IPC. Besides, the aforesaid submissions it has also been submitted that there are some contradic tions between PWs-1, 2 and 3 as to who went to enquire about the victim boy at the houses of his three friends on the next day of the occurrence and to whom these three friends disclosed after 5-6 days that the boy may return on spending some money. It has further been submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of more than five months without any reasonable explanation and in the FIR the informant has not given the details that on the next day of the occurrence the three friends of the victim boy were not in their houses and after 5-6 days they disclosed that if money is spent then the victim boy may be found. 8. 8. So far as reliability of the PWs 1, 2 and 3 is concerned, on careful appraisal of their deposition it is found that but for some minor discrepancies which are bound to occur on account of lapse of time, there is no contradiction in the evidence of these witnesses so as to disbelieve their statements. No doubt, they are all close relations of the victim boy but after investigation the I.O. mentioned only the names of these witnesses besides himself in the charge-sheet as witnesses. Now-a-days, it is a usual phenomenon that even neighbours do not like to get involved in criminal matters and depose against criminals unless there be some good reasons. This is a result of growing fear of criminals particularly those who operate in gangs and indulge in professional crimes like kidnapping. Hence simply because PWs-1, 2 and 3 are relations of the victim boy, their evidence cannot be doubted. The defence has failed to bring on record any material to show that these witnesses are interested in falsely implicating the accused persons for any ulterior reasons. At times relation witnesses in a case like present one are likely to make some exaggerations and therefore due care has to be given while scrutinizing the evidence of such witnesses. PW-1 who is maternal grandfather of the victim has clearly admitted that he was informed about the occurrence by PW-2 and 3. His claim that after giving such information PW-2 alongwith some others went to enquire about the victim boy at the houses of his three friends-named in the FIR cannot be doubted because it is the most natural conduct of a parent of any missing boy. This witness has further claimed that after 5-6 days of the occurrence he had met the three friends of the victim named as accused and they had disclosed that they are not aware as to where the victim went from Motihari but they further disclosed that if some money is spent then Awadhesh will come back. There is no reason to doubt such statement of PW-1. Similar is the claim of PW-2 who is father of the victim and there is no reason to doubt his statements. In search of his missing boy he was bound to make all efforts to go to the houses to the three friends of the victim who had taken the victim with them. Similar is the claim of PW-2 who is father of the victim and there is no reason to doubt his statements. In search of his missing boy he was bound to make all efforts to go to the houses to the three friends of the victim who had taken the victim with them. After learning from his father-in-law about the talks he had with these boys after 5-6 days, it would be the most natural conduct of PW-2 to contact these boys to find out the truth. Hence, there is no material to doubt the claim of PW-2 as made by him in court. 9. PW-3, the mother of the victim boy has claimed to be only witness of the initial part of the occurrence when her son was persuaded by three accused persons including appellants, Bablu @ Aurangjeb and Ravindra Kumar to go with them for witnessing CRPF recruitment. Her claim that her son closed the shop and handed over the keys to her after disclosing where he was going and with whom is the most natural and normal conduct expected from a boy aged about 14-15 years. She has claimed that she herself also saw her son going with these three named accused also cannot be doubted because there is no dispute that houses of the informant and his shop are situated in the same building. Hence, the presence of the mother of the victim, PW-3 at the time when her son closed the shop and left with his three friends is most natural. Therefore, her claim that she learnt the names from her son the victim and saw him going with his friends cannot be doubted. 10. No doubt, there is delay in lodging of the FIR but the reasons for such delay are obvious. The victim boy was traceless and the informant had hope that on account of payment of Rs. 55,000/-and due to his inability to pay further amount, the kidnappers may ultimately release him safely. He had been warned not to report the matter to the police or else his son would be killed. It has further come in the evidence that for 3-4 months the accused persons who had taken money in the jail kept the negotiations hanging on account of demand of further ransom. He had been warned not to report the matter to the police or else his son would be killed. It has further come in the evidence that for 3-4 months the accused persons who had taken money in the jail kept the negotiations hanging on account of demand of further ransom. In such circumstances, delay in informing the police when the boy remained trace-less and still has not been heard of stands easily explained. 11. Non-examination of the I.O. was also argued as one of the grounds for not believing the prosecution case but the trial court has considered this matter in correct perspective and has rightly held that in the facts and circumstances of the case no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the defence on account of non-examination of the I.O. 12. There is no doubt that in the present case, there is no direct evidence of kidnapping but according to evidence on record the victim boy was new to the town and was persuaded by his three friends to go with them at an unusual time when he was sitting in the shop and had to manage the shop all by himself as his father was absent. In the background of such facts leading to disappearance of the victim boy, all the relevant circumstances appearing from the evidence of the three witnesses has to be carefully analyzed. On such analysis it is found that appellants, Bablu @ Aurangjeb and Ravindra Kumar alongwith one Santosh Kumar Mishra had not gone out with the victim boy in the usual manner and at usual hours when friends go to school or go to play. They had taken the victim with them on the plea that he must see CRPF recruitment. It was at an unusual time when the victim boy was running and managing his shop all by himself. On their pressure he closed the shop, handed over the keys to his mother and then went with them and never returned. It has also come in the evidence that on the next day of the occurrence when enquiry was made at the house of these three named accused, they were not found in their houses. On their pressure he closed the shop, handed over the keys to his mother and then went with them and never returned. It has also come in the evidence that on the next day of the occurrence when enquiry was made at the house of these three named accused, they were not found in their houses. It has also come in the evidence that a few days after the occurrence although they claimed that they were not aware as to where the victim boy had gone away from Motihari, they indicated that if some money is spent he will come back. This shows that they were aware that the victim has been kidnapped for ransom. The prosecution has also established that on receipt of letter demanding ransom when the informant met appellant, Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri in jail, he was shown pant and shirt of the victim boy and also a diary relating to the shop. This conclusively shows that the victim boy had gone into captivity of the gang of kidnappers with which Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri were associated and therefore they could produce the wearing apparels of the victim before the father of the victim to convince him that the boy was under their clutches and hence ransom should be paid to them. It has further been established by the prosecution that ransom of Rs. 55,0007-was paid to Chhotai Singh and Rajdeo Giri in jail and in spite of that the boy did not return. 12A. In view of the aforesaid facts proved by the prosecution, burden was upon the so-called three friends of the victim who had in their special knowledge as to what happened after the victim boy went in their company, to disclose such information within their special knowledge. Adverse inference can legitimately be drawn against them under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. On going through the records of this case it is found that not only the so-called friends failed to disclose any information regarding the happenings after 11:00 A.M. of 16.7.1993 when the victim went with them but they avoided going back to their houses on the next date and their talks with PW-1 and PW-2 indicate that they had fair knowledge that the victim boy has been kidnapped and he can come back on spending money. In such circumstances, although there is no direct evidence of kidnapping in this case, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the charges leveled against them. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant, Aurangjeb @ Bablu has raised a submission that the questions put to the said appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not specific inasmuch as the circumstance such as he was not found at house on the next day of the occurrence and that some utterances were made regarding return of the boy on payment of money were not specifically put to him and hence such circumstances cannot be used against the appellant. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 and also a judgment of this Court of the year 1991 following the said judgment. However, learned counsel for the State relied upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) V/s. Dharampal, 2003 0 SCC(Cri) 1012 to submit that omission at the stage of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. by itself does not vitiate the judgment and the accused must show prejudice. It was further submitted that as per the said judgment appellate court can put questions to the counsel for the accused for any explanation. Thus, it has been submitted that since on the basis of evidence recorded during trial in presence of the appellants when the substance of the prosecution case was put to the accused and no explanation has come from the appellants through any means, no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons. It has further been pointed out that the relevant deposition of the witnesses in respect of the aforesaid circumstances has not been challenged through cross-examination and hence no objection can be taken to use of circumstance appearing from such unchallenged deposition. In view of the submission on behalf of the State, we find no merit in the point raised on behalf of the appellant on the basis of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 14. We find no good reason to interfere with the conviction or with the sentence. 15. However, one important aspect remains to be considered in this case. In view of the submission on behalf of the State, we find no merit in the point raised on behalf of the appellant on the basis of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 14. We find no good reason to interfere with the conviction or with the sentence. 15. However, one important aspect remains to be considered in this case. On behalf of the appellants, Bablu @ Aurangjeb and Ravindra Kumar it has been submitted that from their age mentioned by the trial court in course of their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. it would appear that on 21st May, 2003 the appellant Bablu @ Aurangjeb claimed and was found to be aged about 25 years and appellant, Ravindra Kumar claimed and was found to be about 26 years of age. On that basis it has been submitted that on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 16.7.1993 Ravindra Kumar would be just above 16 years of age and appellant Aurangjeb @ Bablu would be just above 15 years. It has further been submitted that under the law as it stood in 1993 only a boy less than 16 years of age could be a juvenile but subsequently under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which came into force on 1.4.2001 any person below the age of 18 years on the date of occurrence has.to be treated as a juvenile and the provisions of this Act have been made retroactive/retrospective on account of an amendment in the said Act made in the year 2006 whereby Section 7A has been added with a view to extend the privileges of a juvenile in conflict with law even to those juveniles as per provisions of the Act of 2000 who have seized to be so on or before commencement of the Amendment Act and a claim of juvenility is to be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case. The effect of such amendment has been considered by a Division Bench of this court in a recent judgment in the case of Akhilesh Ojha V/s. State of Bihar, 2008 1 BBCJ 86 [: 2008(1) PUR 806]. Hence, it has been submitted that benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 should be given to these two appellants. 15A. Hence, it has been submitted that benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 should be given to these two appellants. 15A. Prima facie, the plea of juvenility raised on behalf of the appellants, Bablu @ Aurangjeb and Ravindra Kumar appear to be fit for consideration. In view of interpretation of Section 7A, introduced through the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) as Amendment Act, 2006 made by this Court in the case of Akhilesh Ojha, (supra), if these two appellants are found to be below 18 years of age on 16.7.1993 i.e. the date of occurrence, then the sentence awarded to these two appellants will have no effect and for the purpose of sentence they have to be treated as juveniles and dealt with in accordance with law governing juveniles. 16. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Ram V/s. State of Jharkhand, 2006 3 PUR (SC)121 to submit that even after noticing that the accused of that case was a juvenile as per his age recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the Supreme Court took the view that as per provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 the person concerned has to be brought before the competent authority who shall make due enquiry as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary and shall record a finding whether the person is child or not stating his age as nearly as may be. In that view of the matter and obviously since the competent authority under the Act is Juvenile Justice Board and as per Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 the powers conferred on the Board or under the Act may also be exercised by the High Court and Court of Sessions, the Hon ble Supreme Court after deciding the appeal on merits wherein the conviction was maintained, remanded the matter to the trial court for holding enquiry and for determining the age of the concerned accused. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the learned Sessions Judge with a direction to consider the matter regarding age as on the date of commission of the offence with a direction that if he is found to be a juvenile within the meaning of the Act then to deal with him accordingly. It was further directed that if he is found not to have been a child on the date of commission of the offence, the conviction will stand. 17. In the facts of the case, as held earlier the conviction and sentence against appellant, Chhotai Singh is maintained and his appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 414 of .2003 is dismissed as such. 18. So far as conviction of appellants, Bablu @ Aurangjeb and Ravindra Kumar are concerned, the same are also confirmed but for purpose of sentence, in accordance with Section-7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 as introduced by the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act, 2006 the matter is remitted to the learned trial court i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge-V, West Champaran, Bettiah or to the In-charge Court if that court is vacant, with a direction to hold necessary enquiry in accordance with law regarding the age of the aforesaid two appellants on the date of commission of the offence and in the event they are found to be below 18 years of age on that date then their sentence of life imprisonment, shall stand set aside and they shall be released from custody as they have already undergone incarceration and suffered punishment much beyond what is permissible under the Juvenile Justice Act. In case, they are found not to be juveniles on the date of offence then their sentences will stand. Their appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal Nos. 442 and 468 of 2003 are disposed of accordingly. 19. The office should transmit the necessary records to the trial court without any delay and the trial court shall conclude the necessary enquiry and,record its findings without any delay and in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the records.