In challenge is the judgment and order dated 27.08.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 54 (J) of 2003, whereby and whereun-der appellant Minara Khatun was convicted under Section 3021PC and sentenced to un­dergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous im­prisonment for another 6 (six) months. 2. Unnatural death case (for short UD Case) No. 11 of 2001 was registered on 28.12.2001 at Jogighopa Police Station on filing of an information in writing by one Md. Muhammad Ali, S/o. Lata Ajgar Ali of Bharalukundi, PS.-Jogighopa, wherein it was alleged that on the night of27.12.2001 around 8 pm on his return home he found his only son Amir Hussain aged 4 (four) years lying dead in his residence. He also stated in the said information that on 27.12.2001 he left for his work place at 7 a.m. He lodged the information with the police to make thorough investigation about the cause of death of his only son. Police visited the place of occur­rence (for short P.O.) and conducted inquest on the dead body of Amir Hussain. Inquest was conducted by Sri. Lakheswar Pathak (PW 8), ASI of Police. Post mortem exami­nation on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Shyamalendu Das (PW 9). During post mortem examination having discovered fin­ger marks on the left side of the neck ob­liquely downward and outward and one be­low the other and the fracture of trachea, doctor opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of manual compression of the neck, which was ante mortem and homicidal in na­ture. On the basis of the opinion so recorded by Dr. Shyamalendu Das (PW 9), Sr. Siddheswar Haider, ASI of police of Jogighopa Police Station lodged an FIR (Ext. 2) with the Officer-in-Charge of Jogighopa Police Station. Jogighopa Police Station Case No. 21 of 2002 was registered accordingly under Section 302 IPC. 3. The case having been duly investigated laid a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. The case was tried by the Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon under Sec­tion 302 IPC and during trial as many as nine witnesses were examined including the doc­tor and the Investigating Officer. Appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC. She pleaded her innocence and offered no evi­dence. The case was tried by the Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon under Sec­tion 302 IPC and during trial as many as nine witnesses were examined including the doc­tor and the Investigating Officer. Appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC. She pleaded her innocence and offered no evi­dence. The trial Court taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on recorded both oral and documentary re­corded conviction under Section 3021PC and sentenced as indicated above. 4. We have heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP for the respond­ents, the State of Assam. 5. This appeal came to be listed before a Division Bench of this Court on 01.03.2011 and the bench taking note of the age of the appellant recorded on 10.08.2004 as 21 years and the commission of the offence on 27.12.2001 directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Abhayapuri to produce the ap­pellant before a Medical Board to be consti­tuted by the Superintendent of Gauhati Medi­cal College and Hospital (for short GMCH) for determination of her age in terms of Sec­tion 7 (A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 hereinaf­ter referred to as the Act, 2000 and to submit a report to this Court or before 28.03.2011 with further direction to the State of Assam to bear the expenses for carrying out the test. The appellant having been produced before the Medical Board so constituted by Super­intendent of GMCH on 16.03.201 lat 4:15 pm, the board examined her and submitted a medical report with the Registry of this Court on 25.3.2011. On the basis of the physical examination and radiological investigations, the Board opined that Minara Khatun, the ap­pellant was above 25 years on the date of her examination i.e. on 16.03.2011. It appears from the order passed by the Divison Bench of this Court that the question of juvenility of the appellant was raised on the date i.e. on 0 i .03.2011 for the first time. 6. From the meticulous scrutiny of the trial Courts records it appears to us that the ques­tion of juvenility of the appellant was never raised at any point of time before the trial Court. Appellant being convicted and sen­tenced is serving out the sentence till date. 7. 6. From the meticulous scrutiny of the trial Courts records it appears to us that the ques­tion of juvenility of the appellant was never raised at any point of time before the trial Court. Appellant being convicted and sen­tenced is serving out the sentence till date. 7. Before taking the issue of juvenility of the appellant as raised/pleaded it would be appropriate for us to see whether there is enough room to interfere with the judgment and order rendered by the trial Court and impugned in this appeal and for that a me­ticulous scrutiny of the evidence on record both oral and documentary seemed appro­priate. PW 1 is Md. Nur Islam. He deposed that Amir Hussain the deceased was the son of Mahammad All (P W 2) and Mustt. Minara Khatun, the appellant is the second wife of Mahammad AH. The deceased at the time of death was about 4 years. He died on 27.12.2001 in his house. On receipt of the information about the death of Amir Hussain, he had been to the house of Mahammad Ali, the father of the deceased and found Amir Hussain lying dead on the floor of their house. On the following day police visited the house of Mahammad Ali and held inquest on the dead body of Amir Hussain in his presence and some other persons and prepared inquest report, Ext. 1, wherein he put his signature, Ext. 1/1. In his cross-examination he stated that Mahammad Ali had two children from his first wife and at the material point of time, appellant was residing with Mahammad Ali. 8. PW 2, Mahammad Ali, the father of the deceased in his evidence stated that ap­pellant is his second wife. His first wife died and from her side he had a boy and a daugh­ter. He also stated that after the death of his first wife he married the appellant. Amir Hussain died on 27.12.2001 and at the time of death he was 4 years old. This witness also stated that on 27.12.2001 he came home from his work place at about 5 pm and found Amir Hussain lying dead. On being asked his sec­ond wife, the appellant herein about the cause of death of Amir Hussain, she disclosed that she caused his death by pressing against his neck. On the following day he lodged an FIR with police. On being asked his sec­ond wife, the appellant herein about the cause of death of Amir Hussain, she disclosed that she caused his death by pressing against his neck. On the following day he lodged an FIR with police. Police visited his place and held inquest on the dead body. Thereafter post mortem examination was conducted by P W 9. 9. PW 3 is Abdul Mazid. He stated that Minara Khatun, the appellant is his sister-in-law and the deceased Amir Hussain was his nephew and was the son of the first wife of PW 2. On the date of occurrence at about 6 pm while he was returning home he saw a gathering at Mahammad Ali's residence. He went there and found Amir Hussain, the de­ceased till alive. Per request of the people, who assembled there, he called in doctor Mukut. Doctor came and declared the boy to be dead. He also stated that the appellant Minara Khatun confessed in front of the peo­ple that she killed Amir by pressing against his neck. While cross-examined, he denied the suggestion put to him that Minara did not confess that she killed Amir Hussain by press­ing against his neck. 10. PW 4, Abu Sama Sheikh also stated that he heard the news of killing of Amir Hussain by the appellant by pressing against his neck. This witness also stated that appel­lant is the second wife of Mahammad Ali (PW 2) and Amir Hussain, the deceased was Mahammad Ali's son from his first wife, hi his cross-examination this witness stated that the appellant confessed before him that she killed Amir Hussain by pressing against his neck. 11. PW 5 is Siddheswar Haldar, ASI of police. He,stated that on 16.03.2002 the Officer-in-charge of Jogighopa Police Static handed over the case diary of UD Case No. 11 of 2011 for completion of investigation. He collected the post mortem report and dis­cussed the case with the Officer-in-Charge and the Circle Officer. He was directed to file an FIR after discussion and accordingly he lodged the FIR, Ext, 2 with the Officer-in-Charge of Jogighopa Police Station. In his cross examination he stated that the FIR, Ext. v 2 was filed on the basis of the post mortem report. 12. P W 6 is Pankaj Kalita, a Sub-Inspector of Police and he appears to be the Investi­gating Officer of the case. In his cross examination he stated that the FIR, Ext. v 2 was filed on the basis of the post mortem report. 12. P W 6 is Pankaj Kalita, a Sub-Inspector of Police and he appears to be the Investi­gating Officer of the case. He stated that UD Case No. 11 of 2001 was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by Mahammad AH, PW 2 and the same was investigated by Sri Lankheswar Pathak (PW 8) and on his trans­fer Sri Siddheswar Haldar (PW 5) took up the investigation of the UD Case. Sri Siddheswar Haldar during investigation col­lected post mortem report of the deceased Amir Hussain and on the basis of the post mortem report he lodged the FIR, Ext. 2 with the Officer-in-Charge of Jogighopa police station and basing on it, Jogigopha police sta­tion case No. 21 of 2002 was registered un­der Section 302IPC against Minara Khatun, the appellant. He also stated that during his investigation he recorded statement of the witnesses and arrested the appellant. On his transfer he handed over the Case Diary to his successor, Jiban Kalita, Sub-Inspector of Police. 13. PW 7 is S.I., Sri Kuladhar Talukdar. He deposed before the trial Court that after perusal of the case diary found that investiga­tion had already been completed and on the basis of the materials collected by the former Investigating Officer having found prima facie case against the appellant under Section 3 02 laid charge sheet, Ext. 3, wherein Ext. 3(1) is stated to be his signature. 14. PW 8 is ASI Sri Lakheswar Pathak. He stated in his evidence that on 27.12.2001 he was attached to Jogighopa police station and complaint having been lodged by Mahammad Ali, P W 2 in regard to death of his son, Amir Hussain, he was directed by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to proceed to the place of occurrence and con­duct inquest on the dead body. He stated that he held the inquest in presence of witnesses and prepared inquest report, Ext. 1. He also stated that he recorded the statement of Mahammad Ali, PW 2 and another namely Manahar Ali. Dead body of Amir Hussain was sent for post mortem examination to Goalpara Civil Hospital. He also stated that he prepared a sketch map and handed over the case diary to the Officer-in-Charge thereafter. 15. PW 9, Dr. 1. He also stated that he recorded the statement of Mahammad Ali, PW 2 and another namely Manahar Ali. Dead body of Amir Hussain was sent for post mortem examination to Goalpara Civil Hospital. He also stated that he prepared a sketch map and handed over the case diary to the Officer-in-Charge thereafter. 15. PW 9, Dr. Shyamatendu Das stated that on 28.12.2001 he conducted post mortem examination on tbe dead body of Amir Hussain, a boy of 4 years old identified by Constable No. 224, Golongbo Basumatory, MonnafAli and Abdul Majid Ali. During post mortem examination, he discovered several finger marks over the neck obliquely down­ward and outward and one below the other. On dissection of the neck, there found ex­travasation of blood into the subcutaneous tissues under the finger marks and fracture of trachea. Doctor taking into consideration of all these above opined that death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of manual com­pression of neck, which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. 16. From the evidence of Dr. Shyamalendu Das, PW 9 it would appear to us that deceased Amir Hussain died as a result of As­phyxia due to manual compression of his neck, which was ante mortem and homicidal in na­ture. Evidence of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 speak of extra judicial confession of the ap­pellant. They have unequivocally stated that Minara Khatun confessed before them that she had killed Amir Hussain by pressing against his neck. The learned Judge also re­lied on the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4. On careful scrutiny of their evidence it would appear to us that their testimony are reliable and trust worthy and nothing elicited in their cross-examination favourable to the appel­lant. The extra-judicial confession also re­ceived support from the facts and circum­stances of the case and the evidence on record. Appellant is the second wife of PW 2 and on the date of occurrence deceased and the accused were in their residence, while P W 2 remained away. While the appellant was in their residence along with the deceased Amir Hussain, Amir Hussain died, which speaks for a circumstance against the appellant. As per evidence of the doctor, PW 9, the death was caused by manual compression of the neck. While the appellant was in their residence along with the deceased Amir Hussain, Amir Hussain died, which speaks for a circumstance against the appellant. As per evidence of the doctor, PW 9, the death was caused by manual compression of the neck. Appellant confessed before P W 2, P W 3 and P W 4 that it was she who killed Amir Hussain by pressing against his neck. Therefore, it cannot be said that deceased Amir Hussain did not die on account of compression of his neck, which resulted asphyxia. Though there is no ocular evidence appearing in the face of the record, the extra judicial confession made before PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 by the ap­pellant makes it believable in combination of the evidence of PW 9 that the appellant caused the death of Amir Hussain. 17. The learned Trial Judge taking note of facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on record, extra judicial confession of the appellant made before the P W 2, PW 3 and PW 4 in particular and the evidence of the doctor, PW 9 came to a finding that it was the appellant and appellant alone who caused the death of Amir Hussain, the deceased by manual compression of his neck. The trial Court accordingly recorded conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sen­tenced as indicated above. 18. On the meticulous scrutiny of the evi­dence on record, we find that evidence on record, are not liable to be discarded, it be­ing not saddled with any material contradic­tion, availability of which would have suffi­cient for rejection. We have also seen that the appellant made extrajudicial confession before PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4, that she killed Amir Hussain by pressing against his neck, Extrajudicial confession so made before the PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 apear to be not tainted, shaky so as to render it unaccept­able. On the date of occurrence, PW 2, Mahammad Ali was away from home. Amir Hussain and appellant were present and Amu-was found dead by PW 2. PW 2 on his ar­rival and finding Amir dead on being asked the reason/cause of death of Amir, appellant disclosed that she killed Amir by pressing against his neck. Thus, stayal of appellant and Amir on the day at their home in our consid­ered view creates a circumstance indicating the complicity of the appellant. PW 2 on his ar­rival and finding Amir dead on being asked the reason/cause of death of Amir, appellant disclosed that she killed Amir by pressing against his neck. Thus, stayal of appellant and Amir on the day at their home in our consid­ered view creates a circumstance indicating the complicity of the appellant. All the facts and circumstances and evidence on record if conjointly read, give an irresistible conclusion that appellant is alone responsible for killing Amir Hussian. We are, therefore, unable to draw a different conclusion other than the conclusion arrived at by the trial Judge. We, therefore, find no illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. In our considered view appellant is rightly convicted. 19. Plea of juvenility of the appellant hav­ing been raised before a Division Bench of this Court in view of the age of the appellant stated at the time of recording her statement under Section 313 CrPC and the date of oc­currence, a Medical Board was constituted by the Superintendent of GMCH for deter­mination of the age of the appellant. The ap­pellant being produced before the Medical Board it examined her and on the basis of physical examination and radiological inves­tigations the Board opined mat appellant was above 25 years of age on the date of exami­nation i.e. 16.03.2011. In that calculation on the date of commission of offence appellant was 15 years and above a juvenile per Sec­tion 2 (k) of the Act, 2000. 20. We have already indicated herein be­fore that before the trial Court, the juvenility of the appellant was not pleaded. The trial Court also on its own motion did not take the pain to get her examined by a Medical Board to ascertain her age in view of her statement recorded on 10.08.2004. 21. A juvenile in conflict with law is re­quired to be tried by a Juvenile Justice Board constituted under Section 4 of the Act, 2000. Unfortunately, the plea of juvenility having not been taken before the trial Court, the same being raised before the Division Bench of this Court in appeal, the issue cropped up before us whether the appellant can be released in view of her under going imprisonment for 6 (six) years at least in jail. 22. Section 7 (A) of the Act, 2000 pro­vides procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court. 22. Section 7 (A) of the Act, 2000 pro­vides procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court. Sub section 2 of Section 7 (A) provides that if the Court finds a person to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section 1, it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate order, and the sen­tence, if any, passed by a Court shall be deemed to have no effect. That the appellant was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence is ascertainable from the medical report submitted by Medical Board on the direction of this Court. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Sec­tion 7 (A) the sentence awarded by the trial Court would be of no consequence against the appellant. 23. Section 64 of the Act, 2000 provides procedure to be adopted while a juvenile in conflict with law is under going sentence at the commencement of the Act, 2000. It pro­vides that the State Government shall direct that ajuvenile in conflict with law, who is, under going any sentence of imprisonment at the commencement of this Act shall in lieu of under going such sentence be sent to a spe­cial home or be kept in fit institution in such manner as the State Government thinks fit for the reminder of the period of the sentence and the provisions of this Act shall apply to the juvenile as if he had been ordered by the Board to be sent to such special home or in­stitution or as the case may be, ordered to be kept under protective care under sub-section 2 of Section 16 of this Act. 24. Section 15 of the Act amongst other provides for keeping of the juvenile in special home for a period of three years. The appel­lant having served out 6 (six) years at least of imprisonment till date it would definitely of­fend the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. Rule 98 of the Act also provides the proce­dure to be adopted in disposed of cases of juvenile in conflict with law. The appel­lant having served out 6 (six) years at least of imprisonment till date it would definitely of­fend the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. Rule 98 of the Act also provides the proce­dure to be adopted in disposed of cases of juvenile in conflict with law. It says that the State Government or as the case may be the Board may, either suo-muto or on an application made for the purpose, review the case of a person or ajuvenile in conflict with law, determine his juvenility in terms of the provi­sions contained in the Act and the Rule 12of the Rules and pass an appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law under Section 64 of the Act, for the immedi­ate release whose period of detention or im­prisonment has exceeded the maximum pe­riod provided in Section 15 of the said Act. 25. The appellant herein being appeared to be ajuvenile on the date of commission of the offence per report of the Medical Board, the imprisonment having been awarded for life and 6 (six) yeras already undergone in the meantime, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant would, therefore, offend the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. 26. In the case of Mohan Mali & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 6 SCC 669 , the Apex Court ina simi­lar situation as found in this instant appeal tak­ing the provisions of Sections 7A, 15,20,64 and Rule 98 of the Act held that appellant Dhanna lal having been convicted for life for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC and 9 years already under gone, in view of the maximium sentence of three years pro­vided in Section 15 of the Act released the appellant forthwith. This instant appeal being stood at the same footing, we are of the con­sidered view that the same yardstick is also required to be applied in respect of the ap­pellant, Minara Khatun. 27. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order, dated 27.08.2004 is set aside and quashed. Ap­pellant, Minara Khatun be released forthwith. 28. Send down the Lower Court Records.