Judgment :- N PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. 1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in S.C.No.108 of 2008 dated 5.9.2008 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.2.2008 at 2.30 p.m., inside the Seerathope bus stop, the accused due to previous enmity, with an intention to cause the death of deceased Chinnathambi @ Arumugam belonging to Egirimangalam Village, attacked him with billhook on his head indiscriminately and caused his death. The complaint Ex.P-1 was given by PW-1 Saravanan, son of the deceased on 17.2.2008 at about 3.30 p.m. to PW-10 Sub-Inspector of Police, Somarasampettai Police Station. The complaint was registered for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The FIR is Ex.P-10. After investigation, Final Report was filed against the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The case was tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli and the accused was convicted and sentenced as above stated. 3. To prove the charge, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, marked 18 documents and produced 8 material objects. 4. PW-1 Saravanan is son of deceased Chinnathambi @ Arumugam and PW-2 Annalakshmi. They are residents of Egirimangalam Village. So also PW-3 Mathiyalagan. According to the prosecution, the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased since on several occasions he misbehaved with the mother of the appellant by pulling her hands. PWs.1 and 2 used to pacify him and sent away the accused. 5. On 17.2.2008, PWs.1 and 2 and the deceased came to Seerathope to purchase grocery items from the shop of PW-4 Raja. As the deceased was not well, he went to the nearby shelter at the bus stop. PWs.1 and 2 went to the shop. PW-3 Mathiyalagan also came to the bus stop with Manivel, Balakumar and Pulivalam Vaitheeswar. At about 2.00 p.m., PW-5 Manonmani, who is residing in East Street in Egirimangalam Village, when standing outside her house, saw the accused going with anger and with a bill-hook in his hand. PWs.1 and 2 heard the noice of the deceased. They rushed to the bus-stop. They witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased on his head with the billhook. PW-3 also witnessed the occurrence. PWs.1 and 2 heard the noice of the deceased. They rushed to the bus-stop. They witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased on his head with the billhook. PW-3 also witnessed the occurrence. The appellant ran away with the billhook. Pws.1 and 2 saw the occurrence at a distance of 5, 6 feet. The shopkeeper PW.4 saw the deceased lying dead. PW-2 was with the dead body. PW-1 went to the police station. 6. On the same day, at about 3.30 p.m, PW-10 Kulandaivel, Sub Inspector of Police received the Ex.P-1 complaint from PW-1 and registered a case in Crime No.108 of 2008 under section 302 IPC. Prepared Ex.P-10 FIR and sent it to the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirapalli, through PW-11 Arunachalam, Head Constable with copies to higher officials. PW-12 Thangavelu, Inspector of Police took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at 4.30 p.m. He prepared Ex.P-4 Observation Mahazar in the presence of PW-7 Nagarethinam and Loganathan. He also recovered MO-2 Blood-stained soil and MO-3 ordinary soil under Ex.P-5 Mahazar. He also drawn EX.P-11 rough sketch. On the instruction of PW-12 the dead body was photographed by PW-8 Madhan from different angles. MO-4 series are the photographs. In the presence of Panchayathars, PW-12 conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P-12 Inquest Report. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli for post- mortem through Grade-I Police Constable Ramachandran, along with Ex.P-6 requisition. 7. MO-4 series are the photographs. In the presence of Panchayathars, PW-12 conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P-12 Inquest Report. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli for post- mortem through Grade-I Police Constable Ramachandran, along with Ex.P-6 requisition. 7. PW-9 Dr.A.Karthikeyan conducted post mortem and found the following injuries on the dead body: "(1.) A sagitally placed cut wound 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the frontal region of head, 2 cm away from glabella; (2.) A sagitally placed cut wound 11 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on mid parietal region of head; (3.) An oblique cut wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the left parietal region of head; (4.) An oblique cut wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on theleft temple region of head; (5.) An oblique cut wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on let temporal region of head; (6.) A transverse cut wound 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the left ear and left mastoid region of head; (7.) An oblique cut wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the left side of occipital region of head; (8.) A slash transverse cut wound on upper part of nape of left side of neck 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep; (9.) A punctured wound 0.5 cm in diameter on left side of neck. (10.) A linear incised wound 4 cm in length and bone deep on the back of left shoulder; (11.) Dark brown colour abrasions on the left side of neck; (12.) Bruising of the left temporal region of scalp and left temporalis muscle; (13.) Depressed fracture of left temporal bone and fissured fracture of left temporal and left parietal bones in a singleline; (14.) Fissured fracture of parietal bones extending from the cut fracture; (15.) Subdural haemorrhage and sub arachnoid haemorrhage on both cerebral hemispheres; (16.) Intra cerebraql haemorrhage in the right occipital and temporal lobes of cerebrum; and (17.) Fissured fracture of floor of anterior, left middle cranial and posterior cranial fossae communicating with external fractures." After completing the post mortem, PW-9 issued Ex.P-7 Post-mortem certificate. He opined that the death would have occurred due to Cranio Cerebral Wounds. Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 are Viscera and Serological Reports. 8. He opined that the death would have occurred due to Cranio Cerebral Wounds. Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 are Viscera and Serological Reports. 8. At about 1.00 p.m., at Melapandamangalam bus-stop, in the presence of PW-6 Varadharajan, Village Administrative Officer, Maruthandakurichi, and the Village Assistant PW-12 arrested the appellant. PW-12 recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of said witnesses. Ex.P-2 is admissible portion of the confessional statement. Based on the confession, MO-1 billhook was recovered under the cover of Ex.P-3 mahazar in the presence of said witnesses. The accused was brought to the police station and sent for judicial custody. The post-mortem constable recovered MO-5 Lungi, MO-6 Shirt and MO-7 Black-Thread and MO-8 red colour waist-cord from the dead body and handed over them to PW-12 with Ex.P-13 special report. The material objects were sent to Court under Ex.P-14 in Form 95. On 19.2.2008, the statement of Arumugam, Manivel, Raja, PW-4 Manonmani, PW-8 Madhan, PW-11 Head Constable Arunachalam, Grade-I Police Constable Ramachandran, PW-10 Sub Inspector of Police Kulandaivelu were recorded. The Post-mortem Doctor was also examined and his statement was recorded. PW-12 gave Ex.P-15 requisition to send the material objects for chemical examination. Ex.P-16 is the office copy of the letter of the Judicial Magistrate for having sent the material objects for chemical examination. After completing investigation, PW-12 filed the Final Report on 5.3.2008. 9. When the accused was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the allegations and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. 10. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, based on the depositions of the eye witnesses PWs.1 to 3 and on appreciation of the evidence of the Doctor, who corelated the injuries on the body of the deceased, convicted the appellant/accused under section 302 IPC. As the accused was found to be below 21 years, on the date of his conviction, he was found eligible to get the benefit under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 to serve the sentence. Against the said conviction and sentence this appeal is preferred by him. 11. As the accused was found to be below 21 years, on the date of his conviction, he was found eligible to get the benefit under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 to serve the sentence. Against the said conviction and sentence this appeal is preferred by him. 11. The grounds raised by the appellant/accused in the appeal are that PW-5, who speaks about seeing the accused coming with billhook was examined only on 19.2.2008 i.e, after two days of the alleged occurrence; that PW-1 has stated that the accused had cut the deceased indiscriminately, whereas in the cross-examination he has stated that three to four cuts were inflicted by the accused; that PW-3, an independent witness was aware of the fact that the deceased had entered the bus stop; that the another shop keeper Muthiah, whose name is mentioned in the observation mahazar Ex.P-4 was not examined in the Court; that PW-9 Doctor has stated that there were multiple injuries, which is contrary to the evidence of the eye witnesses. Thus, according to the appellant/accused, the prosecution has not proved the offence alleged as against him beyond reasonable doubts. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned Principal Sessions Judge has not applied the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 and as per section 8 of the Act an adolescent offender as defined under section 2 (1) i.e, between the age of 16 and 21 years, if committed an offence and on the date of conviction he has not completed the age of 21 years, can be sent to the Borstal School for a minimum period of two years, which shall not exceed five years and in any event not beyond the age of 23 years. The said aspect was not considered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, who ordered to send the appellant/accused to Borstal School to serve life term and therefore in any event the appellant/accused is entitled to be released from the Borstal School as he has already served more than three years of sentence in the Borstal School. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no adverse report as against the appellant/accused inside the Borstal School and the same may be verified. 13. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no adverse report as against the appellant/accused inside the Borstal School and the same may be verified. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that there is motive for the appellant/accused as against the deceased, which was clearly established before the Sessions Court and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are clear and cogent, though they are related to the deceased. PW-3, an independent eye witness also corroborated their evidence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused/appellant, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and having found him an adolescent in terms of Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925, he was sent to the Borstal School to serve the sentence and there is no illegality in the said judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge. 14. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is behaving well in the Borstal School, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed for time to get the report from the Superintendent of Prisons, Borstal School and District Jail, Pudukkottai, where the appellant is confined. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also obtained the report from the Borstal School on 11.1.2012 wherein the date of birth of the appellant/accused is mentioned as 7.4.1989 and he was admitted in the Borstal School on 5.9.2008. He will be completing 23 years of age on 6.4.2012. It is also stated in the report that his conduct in the Borstal School is satisfactory. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that appropriate orders may be passed giving him benefit under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925. 15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor. 16. The point arises for consideration in this criminal appeal are as follows: Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under section 302 IPC as against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts ? If so, whether he has been sentenced in accordance with law ? If not, whether he can be released from the Borstal School as of now or on completion of 23 years of age i.e, on 6.4.2012 ? 17. If so, whether he has been sentenced in accordance with law ? If not, whether he can be released from the Borstal School as of now or on completion of 23 years of age i.e, on 6.4.2012 ? 17. The occurrence had taken place on 17.2.2008 at about 2.30 p.m. inside Seerathope bus-stop in broad day light. The enmity between the appellant and the deceased is spoken to by PW-1 stating that the appellant was having enmity against the deceased due to the reason that about five years ago, the deceased attempted to misbehave with the mother of the accused and to wreck vengeance, cut the deceased on his head indiscriminately with a bill-hook and it was witnessed by Pws-1 to 3. PW-1 also identified the bill-hook (MO-1). In the cross examination, PW-1 had stated that on hearing the deceased crying, PWs.1 and 2 rushed to the spot and in their presence the accused cut the deceased 3 to 4 times and ran away. PW-2 who is mother of PW-1 and wife of the deceased also celarly deposed about the occurrence, who also heard her husband crying and rushed to the scene place along with PW-1. She also witnessed accused inflicting cut injuries on the head of the deceased with a bill-hook. She also identified MO-1. Nothing suggesting sudden provocation preceeding the attack was elicited in the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2. 18. PW-3, an independent eye witness has clearly stated in the cross examination that when Pws.1 to 3 went to the spot after hearing the sound of the deceased, the appellant/accused was inflicting cut injuries. In his deposition PW-4 had stated that he saw the deceased lying in the bus stop with cut injuries. PW-9 Doctor, who conducted autopsy, found 17 injuries on the dead body of the deceased and also opined that the deceased died due to the cut in skull bone and also due to injuries sustained in the brain. He also opined that the injuries on the body of the deceasd could be possible by a weapon like MO-1 bill-hook. Thus, the medical evidence of PW-9 corroborate the prosecution case. 19. He also opined that the injuries on the body of the deceasd could be possible by a weapon like MO-1 bill-hook. Thus, the medical evidence of PW-9 corroborate the prosecution case. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that another shop owner by name Muthaiah was not examined in the Court, even though his name was mentioned in Ex.P-4 observation mahazar, has no bearing on the proving of the guilt of the appellant/accused. PW-3 independent eye witness, has corroborated the depositions of PWs.1 and 2, though they are related to the deceased. It is not necessary that in every case all the independent witnesses are to be examined. Even in the absence of PW-3, the depositions of eye witnesses PWs.1 and 2 are in clear terms pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (a) In the decision reported in (2007) 12 SCC 381 (State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash) the Honourable Supreme Court held that even the deposition of solitary witness, who is also related to the deceased can be relied on without corroboration, if the evidence is cogent and not shaken by the defence, and the same can be the basis for convicting the accused. (b) Same is the view taken in the decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC 151 (Kunjv Vs. State of Tamil Nadu)relying on the earlier decisions reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 (Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras) and 1995 SCC (Crl) 160 : AIR 1994 SC 1251 (Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P.). (c) In the decision reported in 2008 (8) Supreme 51 (Munna @ Pooran Yadav V. State of Madhya Pradesh), the Supreme Court relying the earlier decisions cited supra, upheld the conviction on the basis of solitary evidence, who was a related witness. In paragraph 18 the Supreme Court held thus, "(18.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relied on the decision reported in Kunju Alias Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu ( (2008) 2 SCC 151 ) which deals with the subject of the appreciation of the single eye-witness. In paragraph 18 the Supreme Court held thus, "(18.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relied on the decision reported in Kunju Alias Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu ( (2008) 2 SCC 151 ) which deals with the subject of the appreciation of the single eye-witness. THis COurt following the oftly quoted decision in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras ( AIR 1957 SC 614 ) and accepting that decision came to the conclusion that this COurt can and may convict relying on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliabel and that there was no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. ......." (d) In 2009 (1) Supreme 224 (Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab) it is held that conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a solitary eye witness, provided his presence at the place of occurrence was natural and his testimony should be strong, reliable and free from any blemish. What is important is, not how many witnesses have been examined, but what is the nature of the quality of evidence. In paragraph 17 the Supreme Court held thus, "(17.)...................... It is no doubt true that conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a solitary eye witness but in order to be the basis of conviction his presence at the place of occurrence has to be natural and his testimony should be strong and reliable and free from any blemish. In Chuhar Singh v. State of Haryana ( (1976) 1 SCC 879 ) this Court held that what is important is not how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of evidence on which it relies. The evidence of a single witness may sustain a sentence of death whereas a host ofvulnerable witnesses may fail to support a simple charge of hurt. Since the case must stand or fall by the evidence of single witness, it is necessary to examine that evidence critically." (e) In (2007) 8 SCC 523 (Mallanna v. State of Karnataka) the Apex Court held that the evidence of interested witnesses cannot be thrown out and the Court is required to consider their evidence with great care and caution. In para 22 the Supreme Court held thus, "(22.)................. In para 22 the Supreme Court held thus, "(22.)................. In our view, merely because witnesses are related or interested or not injured, their evidence cannot be discarded if the same is otherwise found to be credible, especially when they have supported the prosecution case in material particulars. ................." (f) Same is the view taken in the decision reported in (2007) 8 SCC 578 (Kulesh Mondal v. State of West Bengal) (Paragraphs 9 to 11). (g) It is also the settled position that what is necessary for proving the prosecution case is not the quantity, but quality of evidence. One of the witness examined for the prosecution is independent. His evidence is consistent. Testimonies of the said witness cannot be rejected on the ground that all independent witnesses are not examined. 20. Thus, we are of the view that non-examination of the said Muthaiah, whose name is mentioned in Ex.P-4 Observation Mahazar cannot be taken as a ground to upset the conviction recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. 21. In the light of the above findings, we are of the view that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant/accused has committed the offence. In the circumstances, we concur with the conviction recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, under Section 302 IPC. 22. Insofar as the issue regarding the age of the appellant/accused and whether he is entitled to be released from the Borstal School as of now or on completion of 23 years of age is concerned, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has recorded in his judgment in paragraph 28 that as per the School certificate, the Date of birth of the accused is 7.4.1989 and on the date of conviction, that was on 5.9.2008, the appellant/accused was aged 19 years and five months i.e., below 21 years of age. No contra evidence was shown before the Court to disprove the date of birth entry in the school records. The learned Session Judge gave a finding that the age of the appellant/accused on the date of conviction was 19 years and five months, which is also not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. No contra evidence was shown before the Court to disprove the date of birth entry in the school records. The learned Session Judge gave a finding that the age of the appellant/accused on the date of conviction was 19 years and five months, which is also not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Principal Sessions Judge in paragraph 29 of the judgment has held that the appellant/accused has not completed the age of 21 years and therefore he is entitled to get the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925. The learned Sessions Judge also called for a report from the Probation Officer and he also submitted his report. The Probation Officer in his report recommended that the accused may be given the benefit under Section 8 of the Act. However, the learned Principal Sessions Judge under section 302 IPC, sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and directed that he shall be sent to the Borstal School to serve the sentence and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the direction given by the learned Principal Sessions Judge to send the appellant/accused to the Borstal School to serve the sentence of life imprisonment is contrary to the statutory provision viz., Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was unable to repudiate the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 24. Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 reads as follows: (8.) Power of Court to pass sentence of detention in Borstal School. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was unable to repudiate the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 24. Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 reads as follows: (8.) Power of Court to pass sentence of detention in Borstal School. - (1) Where it appears to a Court having jurisdiction under this Act that an adolescent offender should, by reason of his criminal habits or tendencies, or association with persons of bad character, be subjected to detention for such term and under such instruction and discipline as appears most conducive to his reformation and the repression of crime, it shall be lawful for the Court, in lieu of passing a sentence of imprisonment, to pass a sentence of detention in Borstal school for a term which shall not be less than two years and shall not exceed five years, but in no case extending beyond the date on which the adolescent offender will, in the opinion of the Court, attain the age of twenty three years. (2) Before passing a sentence of detention in a Borstal School under sub-section (1), the Court- (a) shall call for a report from the Probation Officer of the area in which the offender permanently resided at the time when he committed the offence and shall consider such report; (b) shall consider any other report or representation which may be made to it; and (c) may make such further enquiry as it think fit, as to the suitability of the case for treatment in a Borstal school and shall be satisfied that the character, state of health and mental condition of the offender and the other circumstances of the case are such that the offender is likely to profit by such instruction and discipline as aforesaid. (3) The report of a Probation Officer referred to in sub-section 2 shall be treated as confidential: Provided that the Court may, if it so thinks fit, communicate the substance thereof to the offender and may give him an opportunity of producing such evidence as may be relevant to the matter stated in the report." 25. (3) The report of a Probation Officer referred to in sub-section 2 shall be treated as confidential: Provided that the Court may, if it so thinks fit, communicate the substance thereof to the offender and may give him an opportunity of producing such evidence as may be relevant to the matter stated in the report." 25. On a perusal of the above statutory provision it is evident that if a person, whose conviction is recorded before his completion of 21 years of age, in lieu of passing sentence of imprisonment in prison, the Court is bound to pass a sentence of detention in Borstal school for a term which shall not be less than two years and shall not exceed five years but in no case extend beyond the date on which the adolescent offender will, in the opinion of the Court, attain the age of twenty three years. 26. The date of birth of the appellant/accused being 7.4.1989, the appellant/accused will be completing the age of 23 years as on 6.4.2012. Under the said statutory provision, discretion is vested with the learned Sessions Judge while recording conviction, to detain the accused in Borstal School from two years to five years or till his attaining 23 years of age, whichever is earlier. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to follow the said statutoty provision and erroneously ordered that the appellant/accused be detained in the Borstal School to serve life imprisonment. 27. This Court also called for a report from the Superintendent of Prisons, Borstal School and District Jail, Pudukkottai, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and a report dated 11.1.2012 in proceedings No.1530/IC/2011. In the said report it is stated that the appellant/accused was admitted in the Borstal School on 5.9.2008 and he is continuing the sentence in the Borstal School satisfactorily. The appellant is completing the age of 23 years on 6.4.2012. The conduct of the Borstal inmate is satisfactory. 28. The appellant having committed heinous crime with an intention to kill the deceased with deadly weapon with due preparation and repeatedly cut the deceased with the billhook, is not entitled to get any leniency in punishment. Therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the period in which the appellant/accused served in the Borstal School from 5.9.2008 till date may be considered as punishment does not find acceptance by this Court. Therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the period in which the appellant/accused served in the Borstal School from 5.9.2008 till date may be considered as punishment does not find acceptance by this Court. It is well settled proposition of law that if conviction is recorded in a heinous crime, the Court shall not be too lenient with imposition of punishment and the same will give a wrong signal to the wrong doers and to have deterrence on the society adequate punishment is to be recorded. The said proposition is declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1994) 2 SCC 220 (Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B.). In paragraph 15 the Supreme Court held thus, "(15.) In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment." Same view is reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1999) 5 SCC 1 (Jai Kumar v. State of M.P.) (paragraph 25). 29. A life convict under the age of 21 years on the date of conviction cannot be detained beyond the age of 23 years. The said issue was considered by the Apex court in the decision reported in AIR 1985 SC 118 (Elumalai v. State of Tamil Nadu). The said decision was followed by this Court in the decision reported in 1990 LW (Crl) 228 (P.Mohan v. State). 30. In view of the above, we are of the view that the appellant/accused is bound to be detained in the Borstal School till he completes the age of 23 years of age, which will be upto 6.4.2012. 31. In fine, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is confirmed. 30. In view of the above, we are of the view that the appellant/accused is bound to be detained in the Borstal School till he completes the age of 23 years of age, which will be upto 6.4.2012. 31. In fine, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is confirmed. The life sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli is modified to the effect that the appellant shall be detained in Borstal School, Pudukkottai till he completes the age of 23 years.