Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present appeal has been instituted by Shankar Lal son of Ladhu ram, who was aged 18 years, at the time when the impugned judgment was pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Additional Sessions Judge, sirsa, vide his impugned judgment dated 8.8.1997, held appellant Shankar Lal guilty of offence under Sec.304-B IPC and vide order dated 9.8.1997 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was tried along with his co-accused Mam Kauri and Krishan Lal. Appellant Shankar Lal was married with Raj bala about five and a half months before the date of occurrence. Mam Kauri was mother-in-law of deceased raj Bala and Krishan Lal was elder brother of Shankar Lal. 2. Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, received ruqa from the doctor regarding admission of Raj Bala in General Hospital, Sirsa. He reached hospital along with Satbir and Dharambir, Constables. He sought opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Raj Bala to make statement. The doctor opined that Raj bala had suffered 90% burns, therefore, was declared unfit to make statement. Thereafter, Assistant Sub Inspector, approached Chief Judicial Magistrate, sirsa, for recording dying declaration of deceased Raj Bala. The Chief Judicial magistrate, Sirsa, was away, therefore, Naib Tehsildar, Nathusari Chopta, was deputed to record statement of Raj Bala. On opinion sought, Medical Officer again declared Raj Bala unfit to make statement. At that time, Budh Ram, father of Raj Bala, was present in the hospital, and his statement was recorded. Ram singh, Assistant Sub Inspector,m recorded statement of Budh Ram, father of Raj bala, deceased, on 8.9.1995 at 11.00 A. M. The statement was exhibited as Ex. PA on basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA/1 was registered. Budh Ram stated that his daughter Raj Bala was married with accused Shankar Lal five/five and a half months before the date of occurrence and he had given all articles of dowry i. e. one cooler, one refrigerator, one fan, four tolas of gold ornaments and rs.21,000/- in cash, according to his capacity at the time of his marriage. Raj bala started living in the house of her in-laws at Sirsa. Raj bala started living in the house of her in-laws at Sirsa. After the marriage, shankar Lal, husband, Krishan Lal, elder brother of the husband and mother-in-law Mam Kauri asked Raj Bala that complainant (her father) had not given scooter and television. This fact was told by Raj Bala to her family members when she came to meet them at arhianwali, residence of the complainant. Complainant went to Sirsa and promised husband Shankar Lal, elder brother of husband Krishan Lal and mother-in-law Mam Kauri that he would give dowry after sometime. These accused harassed the daughter of the complainant on the ground that she has brought less dowry. A day before the occurrence, Thakur, son of the complainant, had gone to bring Raj Bala. The accused disclosed that Raj Bala would be sent after ten day. They were again requested to send Raj Bala as Sharadh festival was to start soon. On the day of occurrence, Sohan Lal, neighbourer of the accused, came to village Arhianwali and told the complainant that his daughter had been burnt. Thereupon, complainant went to Sirsa. He learnt that his daughter was admitted in hospital in burnt condition. The smell of kerosene was coming from the body of Raj Bala and she was unconscious. After some time, Raj Bala died. The complainant expressed his suspicion that her daughter was burnt by her husband Shankar Lal, Krishan Lal, elder brother of the husband and Mam Kauri, mother-in-law. The above said FIR was investigated. Report under Sec.173 cr. P. C. was submitted. 3. The accused were charged on 28.11.1995 by Additional Sessions Judge, sirsa, that accused being mother-in-law, husband and elder brother of the husband, subjected Raj Bala to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry before her death and death was caused in the house of accused at Sirsa on 8.9.1995 by burns within seven years of marriage with Shankar Lal accused and thereby all accused caused dowry death and committed an offence under Section 304-B IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution led its evidence. 5. Pw.1 Ravi Dutt, Assistant Sub Inspector, stated that on receipt of statement Ex. PA, formal FIR Ex. PA/1 was recorded and special report was sent to illaqa Magistrate. 6. Pw.2jai Singh, Constable, stated that on 8.9.1995 he carried special report for delivery to the Illaqa Magistrate. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution led its evidence. 5. Pw.1 Ravi Dutt, Assistant Sub Inspector, stated that on receipt of statement Ex. PA, formal FIR Ex. PA/1 was recorded and special report was sent to illaqa Magistrate. 6. Pw.2jai Singh, Constable, stated that on 8.9.1995 he carried special report for delivery to the Illaqa Magistrate. The special report was delivered at 1.45 P. M. In cross-examination, he stated that the distance between Police station City Sirsa and Judicial Courts Complex, Sirsa, can be covered within 20 minutes on bicycle. PW.3 Inderjit Singh stated that on 18.9.1995, he had visited the place of occurrence and had prepared site plan Ex. PB. The site plan was prepared at the instance of Budh Ram PW. PW.4 Pahop Singh, Inspector, station House Officer of Police Station City, Sirsa, prepared and submitted report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. 7. Pw.5 Dr. Raminder Singh, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hisar, was a member of Medical Board which conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Raj Bala wife of Shankar Lal, appellant, aged 20 years. According to this witness, no ligature mark was present on the dead body. Following injury was found on the dead body:- "there was present extensive burns on the body (90%) involving face, neck, throat, abdomen and both legs except a few area of pelvis and both soles. Skin was peeling of at places and there was also blister formation and red line of demarcation between healthy tissue. The hair was singed. 8. On dissection oozing of fluid was present in the sub couteneous tissue. The stomach was healthy and empty. Small intestines were healthy and the large intestines were healthy and empty. Liver, spleen and both kidneys were healthy and congested. Other organs were healthy and both the chamber of the heart contained small quantity of blood". The doctor opined that the cause of death was result of shock due to extensive burns which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In cross-examination, witness stated that with burn injuries, patient can remain conscious for a long time. 9. Pw.6 Dr. Dharmender Singh, Medical Officer, stated that on 8.9.1995, he was posted at General Hospital, Sirsa. He had examined Raj Bala wife of Shankar Lal, aged 18 years. Patient was conscious and well-oriented. In cross-examination, witness stated that with burn injuries, patient can remain conscious for a long time. 9. Pw.6 Dr. Dharmender Singh, Medical Officer, stated that on 8.9.1995, he was posted at General Hospital, Sirsa. He had examined Raj Bala wife of Shankar Lal, aged 18 years. Patient was conscious and well-oriented. Blood pressure and pulse were not recordable due to burns. Kerosene oils smell was present. He stated that there was burn approximately 90%. Burns were superficial and deep all over the body. Skin was peeled off at some place. Singing of hair was present. This witness further submitted that he had examined Raj Bala on 8.9.1995 at about 6.00 A. M. in the morning at General hospital. This witness, in cross-examination, stated that distance between general Hospital and Police Station City, Sirsa, can be covered within ten minutes on bicycle. Budh Ram, complainant, father of deceased Raj Bala, appeared as PW.7. He stated that Raj bala was married with appellant Shankar Lal on 23.3.1995. He had given various articles and Rs.20,000/- cash. He had spent Rs.1,25,000/- on the marriage of his daughter. After the marriage, deceased was harassed by the accused on the ground that she has brought less dowry and the accused started demanding scooter. Raj Bala told her father that accused was demanding scooter. This witness went to the house of accused and told them that he was not in a position to give scooter but he would make efforts to fulfill their demand. A request was also made to the accused that they should not harass Raj Bala. One day prior to the occurrence, Thakur, son of the complainant, went to the house of accused situated in Gaushala Mohalla, Sirsa, to bring Raj Bala to her parental house. The accused refused to send Raj Bala and stated that Raj Bala would come after a period of ten days. A one year after the date of occurrence, this witness deposed that one person came on a scooter and informed that his daughter Raj Bala was put on fire and murdered by the accused. Upon this, witness reached the house of accused. House was found closed. Therefore, he came to General Hospital, Sirsa, where he learnt that his daughter Raj Bala was lying unconscious in the hospital and she died there after some time. Smell of kerosene oil was coming from the body of Raj Bala. Upon this, witness reached the house of accused. House was found closed. Therefore, he came to General Hospital, Sirsa, where he learnt that his daughter Raj Bala was lying unconscious in the hospital and she died there after some time. Smell of kerosene oil was coming from the body of Raj Bala. He made his statement to the police on basis of which case was registered. Police had taken into possession half burnt salwar of Raj Bala. This witness was cross-examined. He was confronted with his previous statement Ex. PA where it was not stated that he had spent Rs.1,25,000/-. He was also confronted with his previous statement where it was not stated that Sohan Lal had come to inform him about the death of deceased. On various aspects, he was confronted with his previous statement. This witness stated that he knew Ladhu ram, father of the appellant, nine years, before, because he used to visit village of the complainant to collect grain and fodder for the Gaushala. This witness further submitted that engagement ceremony of Raj Bala with appellant was performed 12 months before her marriage. Complainant had got three daughters and Raj Bala was youngest. Marriage of Raj Bala was performed on 23.3.1995. On the next day, marriage of his two sons Thakur and Nanak was solemnized. This witness admitted that father of the accused was having a tractor before the marriage but did not know if the tractor was sold by Ladhu ram, father of the appellant. He also denied knowledge whether Ladhu Ram was holding ten acres of land in village Tajia or not. This witness denied the fact that on 9.3.1995, he had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from Ladhu Ram, in order to meet out the expenses of marriage of his two sons and daughter Raj Bala with the accused. This witness further stated that his village is about 10 Kms. from sirsa and was connected with pucca road. Raj Bala stayed for three days in her in-laws house after marriage on 23.3.1995. After six days, appellant Shankar came and Raj Bala was sent with him. This witness stated that he reached Civil hospital, Sirsa, on 8.9.1995 at 10.00 A. M. This witness further stated that he had not noticed any stove in the kitchen. He denied the suggestion of defence that Raj Bala was not harassed. Ram Piari, mother of deceased, was examined as pw.8. This witness stated that he reached Civil hospital, Sirsa, on 8.9.1995 at 10.00 A. M. This witness further stated that he had not noticed any stove in the kitchen. He denied the suggestion of defence that Raj Bala was not harassed. Ram Piari, mother of deceased, was examined as pw.8. She reiterated what was stated by her husband. She was also confronted with her previous statement Ex. DA on material aspects. PW.9 Ram Singh stated that ruqa was received from the hospital. The doctor declared Raj Bala to be unfit to make statement, vide endorsement Ex. PC/4. She was having 90% of burns. He submitted application ex. PJ before the Illaqa Magistrate who directed Naib Tehsildar to record the statement of Raj Bala. The doctor again declared Raj Bala unfit to make statement. Thereafter, statement Ex. PA of Budh Ram was recorded. He had prepared the inquest report Ex. PC/3, also submitted application Ex. PL for conducting post mortem examination. He had taken into possession clothes of deceased Raj Bala, vide memo Ex. PK. He investigated the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex. PL. From the spot , he took into possession one plastic peepi which was smelling of kerosene oil, one burnt salwar, one broken bangle. These articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PM. The peepi was exhibited as Ex. P1, clothes of Raj Bala as Ex. P2 and burnt salwar as Ex. P3. 10. Pw.10 M. R. Nehra, Naib Tehsildar, stated that he had gone to record the dying declaration. On 8.9.1995 at 9.45 A. M. the doctor declared Raj Bala unfit to make statement. 11. Pw.11 Dr. R. P. Dahiya, opined that deceased was unfit to make statement. 12. Prosecution closed its evidence and the statements of accused were recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. They denied all incriminating circumstances. 13. Shankar Lal, appellant, took following stand in his statement recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. "i am innocent. In fact, Raj Bala was working in the kitchen, when she accidentally got burnt and suffered burns injuries. I and my co- accused have not demanded any dowry at any time. My father Ladhu Ram had paid Rs.50,000/- in cash as loan to Budh Ram complainant, father of Raj Bala (deceased) about fifteen days prior to the marriage of Raj Bala, which amount is still due. I and my co- accused have not demanded any dowry at any time. My father Ladhu Ram had paid Rs.50,000/- in cash as loan to Budh Ram complainant, father of Raj Bala (deceased) about fifteen days prior to the marriage of Raj Bala, which amount is still due. My father and my mother Mam kauri are living separately from us in a Quarter in Gaushala, Sirsa, where my father Ladhu Ram is in service of Gaushala. I and my co- accused Krishan Lal were living separately and doing our separate business. I and my co-accused Krishan Lal are living in separate houses. After the death of Raj Bala, Budh Ram complainant, the father of Raj Bala demanded more amount and when my father Ladhu Ram showed his inability to do so, then i and my co-accused namely Mam Kauri and Krishan Lal have been falsely implicated in this case". 14. Dw.1 Tola Ram stated that he knew the family of accused. Krishan Lal, and Shankar Lal, accused were living separately from their parents. It was stated that Shankar Lal was living separately after his marriage was performed. 15. Babu Ram Goyal, Advocate, appeared as DW.2. This witness stated that he was unanimously elected as General Secretary of Criminal Appeal No.798-SB of 1997 10 Gaushala and Ladha Ram was employee of Gaushala and he was in service of Gaushala for the last 30 years. 16. Gobind Ram, Record Keeper, Municipal Council, Sirsa, appeared as DW.3 and proved voter list. He was examined to prove separate residence of Shankar lal, appellant. 17. Harish Kumar, Clerk, from the office of Food and Supply Controller, sirsa, was also examined, as DW.4. He was examined to prove separate ration cards. Thereafter, defence closed its evidence. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of DW.2 Babu Ram Goyal, Advocate, and held ;that Mam Kauri was living separately from accused Shanker Lal and Krishan Lal and therefore, she had no connection with the demand of scooter and other dowry articles from Raj Bala, deceased, or her father. Therefore, acquittal of Mam Kauri, was recorded. The trial Court further held that Shanker Lal, accused, present appellant, started demanding scooter, therefore, he alone was responsible. The trial Court further held that Krishan Lal, accused, was residing separately for the last eight/ten years, therefore, demand of scooter, if raised, would have been raised by shanker Lal, alone. Therefore, acquittal of Mam Kauri, was recorded. The trial Court further held that Shanker Lal, accused, present appellant, started demanding scooter, therefore, he alone was responsible. The trial Court further held that Krishan Lal, accused, was residing separately for the last eight/ten years, therefore, demand of scooter, if raised, would have been raised by shanker Lal, alone. I have heard Mr. K. L. Suneja, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State. 17. Counsel for the appellant has made following thirteen submissions:- Mr. K. L. Suneja, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has stated that PW.7 Budh Ram and PW.8 Ram Piari, father and mother of deceased Raj Bala, have not been believed qua acquitted accused Mam Criminal Appeal No.798-SB of 1997 11 Kauri, mother-in-law and Krishan Lal, elder brother of the present appellant. Therefore, it is submitted that these two witnesses are not truthful. They had falsely implicated two accused. The trial Court found no justification to rely upon their testimony. Hence, implicit reliance cannot be placed upon these witnesses to affirm conviction of the appellant, recorded by the trial Court. 18 Secondly, it has been submitted that prosecution has examined no independent witness. Both PW.7 Budh Ram and PW.8 Ram Piari, are father and mother of the deceased. No relation, member of Panchayat, any respectable of the locality or neighbourer has been examined. Therefore, taking into consideration that these two witnesses have not been believed qua other accused, their testimony should be discarded as no corroboration is coming forward from any independent source. 19. Thirdly, it was submitted that marriage was a very simple affair. This fact is evident from the fact that prosecution has failed to prove wedding card of the marriage. Non production of ;the wedding card, in itself, prove that the marriage was a very simple affair as no wedding card was printed. 20. Fourthly, it was urged that prosecution has not proved on record any letter or document to prove factum of demand of dowry, harassment, and maltreatment on the part of the accused. The Court has to rely upon bald oral assertion of these two witnesses. Picking thread from this argument, it was further submitted that nobody else has witnessed to alleged beating and demand of dowry. 21. Sixthly, counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a case of accidental fire in the kitchen. The Court has to rely upon bald oral assertion of these two witnesses. Picking thread from this argument, it was further submitted that nobody else has witnessed to alleged beating and demand of dowry. 21. Sixthly, counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a case of accidental fire in the kitchen. No kerosene oil was found at the spot or in the peepi Ex. P1 recovered from the spot. 22. Seventhly, it was submitted that only allegation of smell of kerosene surfaced in the testimony of Pwb.7 Budh Ram. He was duly confronted with his previous statement Ex. PA where this fact was not stated. It was submitted, thus, that testimony of witness suffer from blemish of improvement. 23. Eighthly, counsel for the appellant contended that the Investigating officer, from the spot, had recovered half burnt salwar Ex. P3 which depict that deceased was struggling to save herself, therefore, it is not a case of suicide but accidental fire. Ninthly, counsel for the appellant laid much emphasis on the conduct of accused and submitted that the appellant had taken the deceased to the hospital and had also relayed information to the police and, to the parents of deceased through Sohan Lal, Pandit, who is none else but their neighbourer. Therefore, conduct of accused rule out guilt of the accused. 24. Tenthly, it was submitted that when Raj Bala reached at hospital, she was conscious and at that time, no effort was made to record her dying declaration. A delay was caused in recording the statement and furthermore delay was used for consultations and deliberations to coin this version. 25. Eleventhly, it was submitted that father of accused/appellant Shankar lal had advanced Rs.50,000/- to the father of girl Budh Ram at the time of marriage of his daughter and two sons. It was submitted that marriage of deceased was performed with the accused on 23.3.1995 and on the very next day i. e. on 24.3.1995, two sons of the complainant Budh Ram were married. Father of the accused had not only helped budh Ram at the time of marriage but he had also given niyonda. Twelfthly, it was submitted that Budh Ram, in order to absolve himself from the loan, had falsely implicated family members of the appellant. Father of the accused had not only helped budh Ram at the time of marriage but he had also given niyonda. Twelfthly, it was submitted that Budh Ram, in order to absolve himself from the loan, had falsely implicated family members of the appellant. Furthermore, dowry articles and Rs.20,000/- recovered from the present appellant were received by father of the deceased on sapurdari and was spent to pursue the litigation. Therefore, the conduct and antecedents of the complainant make him wholly unreliable witness. Furthermore, whenever Raj Bala went to meet her parents, she was accompanied by the appellant and she was also escorted from parental house to matrimonial home by the present appellant. Lastly, it was submitted that no specific allegation was levelled against the appellant. Similar allegations were levelled against the other two acquitted accused, therefore, if those allegations have not been believed qua other accused, they cannot be believed qua the present appellant. It was further submitted that at the time of occurrence, appellant was 18 years old. He was not matured enough to understand the mundane affairs and he has already undergone two years and eight months. Offence, if any, will fall under Sec.306 IPC and thus, sentence should be reduced to already undergone. The above said arguments, raised by counsel for the appellant, were countered by counsel for the State and it was submitted that the witnesses, being reliable, should be given due credence and conviction and sentence of the appellant should be maintained. I am not impressed by the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant. In the present case, at the time of occurrence, marriage of deceased raj Bala with appellant Shankar Lal was five and a half months old. Deceased had died in the house of the appellant and her death was in the circumstances other than normal. The trial Court has granted benefit of doubt to Mam Kauri and Krishan Lal. It was held that they had nothing to gain from the demand of dowry especially of the scooter and they were having separate residence. Therefore, no milage can be drawn by the appellant from the acquittal of his co-accused. Both PW.7 Budh Ram and PW.8 Ram Piari have not implicated other members of the family. Father of the appellant Ladhu Ram was not named as accused. It shows truthfulness of their testimony. Therefore, no milage can be drawn by the appellant from the acquittal of his co-accused. Both PW.7 Budh Ram and PW.8 Ram Piari have not implicated other members of the family. Father of the appellant Ladhu Ram was not named as accused. It shows truthfulness of their testimony. Therefore, the testimony of these witnesses can be accepted and there is no need for the Court to seek corroboration from independent witness or the neighbourer. It is the assertion of defence that marriage was simple. No evidence has been led to prove this fact. Non production of wedding card in itself is no basis to assume that no wedding card was printed or the marriage was simple. The argument that no letter or document was produced to prove harassment is to be rejected at the outset. It was five and a half months old marriage. The house of parents of the deceased was at a distance of 10 Kms. The very fact that the marriage was recent and parental house of the deceased was situated nearby is sufficient to reject the argument advanced. There was no necessity to communicate anything through letter or document. Smell of kerosene was present on the body of deceased was also noticed by PW.6 Dr. Dharmender Singh. Therefore, it cannot be said that the improvement to this effect in the testimony of PW.7 budh Ram impeach the credibility of the witness. Recovery of half burnt salwar, in itself, will not be factor to determine that the deceased had not committed suicide. Normally, after commission of suicide, an attempt is made by the person to save himself. The conduct of the accused to take Raj Bala to the hospital, in itself, will not rule out that she was harassed and demand of scooter was raised by the appellant. Suggestion that father of the appellant had given a loan of rs.50,000/- to father of deceased remained mere suggestion and same has not been proved by way of any documentary evidence. Every ancillary argument raised, also merit no attention. PW.7 Budh Ram has specifically stated that he had gone along with the Investigating Officer to the spot. He had not found any stove there, therefore, the suggestion that it is a case of accidental fire has received support from no corner. Every ancillary argument raised, also merit no attention. PW.7 Budh Ram has specifically stated that he had gone along with the Investigating Officer to the spot. He had not found any stove there, therefore, the suggestion that it is a case of accidental fire has received support from no corner. Having rejected all the arguments submitted by counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that both PW.7 Budh Ram and PW.8 Ram Piari had proved that the appellant was demanding scooter and dowry. That demand was raised soon before the death of deceased. Presumption under Sec.113b of the Indian Evidence Act is already against the appellant. As stated earlier, all ingredients of offence under Sec.304-B IPC are made out against the present appellant. Therefore, conviction of the appellant is maintained. 26. In the head note of the judgment, age of the appellant noticed is 18 years. The judgment was delivered on 8.8.1997. Statement of the present appellant Shankar Lal under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 12.5.1997. There also age of the appellant recorded is 18 years. In the present case, Additional Sessions Judge has drawn charges against the accused on 28.11.1995 and in the charge age of the appellant Shankar Lal has been noticed, as under:- "2. Shankar Lal son of Ladhu Ram, Aged-16 years (by appearance aged 20-22 yrs)". 27. Therefore, in 1995, appellant had given his age as 16 years. In the judgment and statement recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. in 1997 his age was recorded as 18 years. A Division Bench of this Court in Mai Ditta Singh V/s. The state of Punjab 1981 Chandigarh Law Reporter 147, had observed as under:- "7. It was then contended by the learned advocate General that apart from the bald statement made by the accused himself, there was no other material on the record to show that he was 18 years old on the date when he was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that since the petitioner was desirous of getting benefit of exceptional provisions like Sections 4/6 of the Act, the burden lay on him to prove all the circumstances which brought his case within the purview of those sections. We are unable to accept this contention raised by the learned advocate General. It was submitted that since the petitioner was desirous of getting benefit of exceptional provisions like Sections 4/6 of the Act, the burden lay on him to prove all the circumstances which brought his case within the purview of those sections. We are unable to accept this contention raised by the learned advocate General. In a criminal case, the burden of proof always remains on the prosecution. The question of age of an accused person is a relevant factor because the Courts always take it into consideration while imposing sentence on him. Apparently, therefore, if an accused person in his examination gives his age, which is contested by the prosecution, the burden lies on the latter to show that he was of higher age than the one given by him and that he was not entitled to seek benefit of an exceptional provision. We are accordingly of the view that the petitioner was below 18 years on the date when this offence was committed". 28. In the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this court, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to hold an enquiry regarding age of the appellant. This exercise was not undertaken. In Balu alias bakthavatchalu V/s. State of Tamilnadu 2008 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 164, honble the Apex Court had held that even after the conviction, Court can make an enquiry regarding the age of the accused in order to award benefit of juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "2000 Act" ). In Balu alias Bakthavatchalus case (supra), reliance was also placed on Jitender Ram V/s. State of Jharkhand 2006 (3) Recent criminal Reports (SC) 165 wherein it was held that each case has to be considered on the basis of material brought on record. Furthermore, Honble the apex Court, in Hari Ram V/s. State of Rajasthan and Another 2009 (2) Recent criminal Reports 878 held that 2000 Act has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "2007 rules") and amendment was introduced to Sec.20 of 2000 Act whereby proviso and explanation were added to Section 20 of 2000 Act, to say that not only the Juvenile Justice Act shall apply retrospectively, but to all pending cases including trial, revision and appeal. Para 41 of the judgment read as under:- "41. Para 41 of the judgment read as under:- "41. The said position was re-emphasised by virtue of the amendments introduced in Sec.20 of the 2000 Act, whereby the Proviso and explanation were added to Sec.20, which made it even more explicit that in all pending cases, including trial, revision, appeal and any other criminal proceedings in respect of juvenile in conflict with law, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile would be in terms of clause (1) of Sec.2 of the 2000 Act, and the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said provisions had been in force when the alleged offence was committed". 28. This view was also reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in sandeep V/s. State of Haryana (Pandh) (DB) 2009 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 392. Two single Benches of this Court have also reiterated the above said view. Reference can be made to Rajesh V/s. The State of Haryana 2009 (3) All India criminal Law Reports 173 and Baljinder Sing V/s. State of Haryana and Another 2009 (4) Recent Criminal Reports 603. 29. In view of the discussion held above, present appeal is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court on 8.8.1997 is upheld, and order of sentence dated 9.8.1997 is kept in abeyance. The present appellant is on bail, therefore, he be summoned by the competent Juvenile Justice Board, Sirsa, who shall hold an enquiry whether, on the date of occurrence, the appellant was juvenile or not. In case, it is found that the appellant was not juvenile, the order of sentence dated 9.8.1997 shall come into force. Otherwise, the Juvenile Justice Board shall pass orders regarding sentence in accordance with 2000 Act.