Judgment :- P.DEVADASS, J. Victoria, sister of Kumar, now confined in Central Prison, Madurai seeks release of her brother, extending him the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter, in short, J.J. Act). 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the date when the offence was committed, the detenu was below 18 years. He is a Juvenile in conflict with law. He is entitled to the benevolent provisions of J.J Act. Thus, he cannot be sentenced as against the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Applying the provisions, he is entitled to be released. 3. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. On 7/8/1994, at a place near Devakottai, petitioner and his brother and their father have all assaulted one Kulandaisamy and he died. In Sessions Case in S.C.No.95 of 1995, on 17/8/1998, the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram awarded life sentence to the detenu. On appeal, in C.A.No.675 of 1998, on 23/7/2007, this Court has converted his conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 (i) IPC and sentenced him to 7 years. 5. J.J Act is intended to deal with the Juveniles in conflict with law. A Juvenile is one either male or female, below 18 years. Another parallel enactment is Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925. Though their object is same, there is vital difference between both. So far as J.J Act is concerned, the crucial date is date of commission of the offence. But, so far as the Borstal Schools Act is concerned, it is date of conviction. So far as J.J is concerned, on the date when the offence was committed, the accused must be below 18 years, whereas under the Borstal Schools Act, on the date of conviction, the accused must be above 18 years but below 21 years. Under the J.J. Act, at the most, a person can be detained in an Observation Home upto 3 years whereas under the Borstal Schools Act, 1925 it is upto 5 years. 6. Now, what is relevant is date of birth of the accused, when the offence was committed and his behaviour during his stay in the jail. 7. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram was directed to conduct an enquiry to determine his age. 6. Now, what is relevant is date of birth of the accused, when the offence was committed and his behaviour during his stay in the jail. 7. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram was directed to conduct an enquiry to determine his age. After recording the oral and documentary evidence produced by both sides, the learned Sessions Judge determined the date of birth of the detenue as on 7/8/1994 is at 6/4/1997, so, then he will be 17 years and 4 months. 8. In the Police records, the detenu has been shown as Kumar. But, in the birth certificate, he is shown as Paulraj Kumar. 9. The learned Sessions Judge in his report dated 5/9/2011 reported that the detenu was below 17 years and 4 months on the date when the offence was committed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute this age determination. We have perused the evidence and the finding of the Sessions Judge. We accept the finding of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram determining the age of the detenue as on the date of the commission at 17 years and 4 months. On verification of records, it is seen that Kumar and Paulraj Kumar are one and the same person. Additional Public Prosecutor also did not disputed that. 10. Admittedly, either before the Committal Court or before the Sessions Court or before the High Court, when his Criminal Appeal was dealt with there was no claim of juvenility. It was claimed for the first time in this HCP by the sister of the detenu. A combined reading of Section 7 A and 20 of the new JJ Act enables a person to claim juvenility at any state of the proceedings including H.C.P even before the Apex Court. 11. So, on the date when the offence was committed, the detenu is a Juvenile in conflict with law. As per Section 16 of the new JJ Act, a Juvenile in conflict with law shall not be sentenced to life or death. As per Section 15 of the Act, at the most, he can be sentenced upto 3 years. Now, in this case, the Division Bench in the Criminal Appeal has reduced his life sentence to 7 years. Now, as on date, the detenu is in jail for more than 5 years. There is no report of abnormal behaviour of the detenu during his stay in jail. 12. Now, in this case, the Division Bench in the Criminal Appeal has reduced his life sentence to 7 years. Now, as on date, the detenu is in jail for more than 5 years. There is no report of abnormal behaviour of the detenu during his stay in jail. 12. Now, he is aged about 34 years. He is eligible for the benefit of J.J Act. As per the Act, he can be detained in an Observation Home for 3 years. However, he had already in jail for 5 years. Now, he has become a full adult man. In these circumstances, he cannot be sent to observation Home. In such a situation, the trend of the latest decisions is not to send him to observation Home but to release him from jail. 13. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the detenu in C.A.No.675 of 1998 by this Court on 23.7.2007 is modified. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai is directed to release the detenu from prison, if he is no longer required for any other case or proceedings as on date.