Judgment : S. Manikumar, J. 1. Vide judgment in S.C.No.119 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai, dated 19.05.2009, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 302 and 377 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Supporting affidavit discloses that in another criminal case in S.C.No.271 of 2007 for offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), 377 and 201 IPC, the Sessions Court, (Mahila Court), Madurai, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death. The petitioner preferred appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.441 of 2008 against S.C.No.271 of 2007. Reference has been taken up in R.T.(MD).No.3 of 2008. Before this Court in Crl.A(MD).No.441 of 2008 and R.T.(MD).No.3 of 2008, the petitioner has filed M.P. (MD).No.1 of 2009 seeking permission to raise an additional ground that, as on the date of the commission of offence in S.C.No.271 of 2007, the petitioner was a juvenile, in conflict with law, on the basis of his date of birth, i.e. 01.06.1989. Therefore, in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.441/2008, the petitioner has contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Act). On the above submissions, pending Crl.A.(MD).No.441/2008 and R.T.(MD).No.3/2008, a Hon'ble Division Bench, has directed the Trial Court to hold an enquiry, in respect of age of the petitioner, as on the date of occurrence and to submit a report. 2. Pursuant to the order made in R.T.(MD).No.3/2008 and Crl.A.(MD).No.441/2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Madurai, has submitted a report dated 22.02.2010, and thereby reported that the accused was not a juvenile in conflict with law and that, he was about 21 years of age, at the time of commission of offence. When the said report was considered by yet another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, an objection seemed to have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the enquiry conducted by the learned Sessions Judge was not in accordance with law and that even the School Certificate of the accused, showing his date of birth, was not considered and instead, the opinion of the doctor alone was considered. Having regard to the objections of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein, not to take the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on record, the subsequent Hon'ble Division bench of this Court, which heard Crl.A.(MD)No.441 of 2008 and R.T. (MD).No.3 /2008, vide order dated 29.07.2010, scrapped the report dated 22.02.2010 submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Madurai and remanded the matter back to said Court, to conduct an enquiry, in respect of the age of the petitioner, as on the date of the commission of the offence, by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, and to submit a fresh report, within a period of four weeks, thereafter. 3. Thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Madurai, has once again conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 13.09.2010. Upon perusal of the report, dated 13.09.2010, the subsequent Hon'ble Division Bench, has recorded that on the side of the petitioner, as many as, three witnesses have been examined and two documents have been exhibited. One Dr.K.Rajkumar has been examined as the Court witness and his opinion, based on the X-ray report, has been marked as Ex-C1. The Hon'ble Division Bench has further recorded having considered the above materials and the report dated 13.09.2010, learned Additional Sessions Judge has concluded that as on the date of commission of offence, in S.C.No.271/2007, that is 22.10.2006, the petitioner was aged 17 years four months and 21 days and thus, he was only a juvenile in conflict with law. At para numbers, 8 and 9 of the judgment in R.T.(MD).No.3/2008 and Crl.A(MD).No.441 of 2008, dated 25.11.2011 the Hon'ble Division Bench has recorded as follows:- “8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to point out any infirmity so as to discard the said report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai. On our part, we have also perused the materials placed before the Lower Court by way of oral evidence as well as documentary evidence and we have also fully gone through the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 10. The School Certificate marked as Ex.-P1 shows that the date of birth of the appellant is 01.06.1989 and the same has been duly proved by the accused. There is no controversy in this regard. The evidence of the doctor would also go to support the same. 10. The School Certificate marked as Ex.-P1 shows that the date of birth of the appellant is 01.06.1989 and the same has been duly proved by the accused. There is no controversy in this regard. The evidence of the doctor would also go to support the same. In general, the evidence of the doctor, being only an opinion evidence, cannot go to conclusively prove the age of an individual. But, in the case on hand, the date of birth of the appellant itself has been proved by means of the School Certificate and from the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3. PW-1, is the Headmaster of the school, where the accused studied. He has spoken to about Ex.A-1, School Certificated issued to the accused. PW-2, who was the Headmaster on 04.05.2002, issued the Certificate and her signature has been marked as Ex.-P2, PW-3, is the Headmaster of the School between 2001-2002, where the accused studied. She has also spoken to about Ex.-A-1. Thus, from the evidences of PW-1 to PW-3, and Ex-P1, the accused has proved that his date of birth is 01.06.1989. The medical evidence also duly corroborate the same. These materials have been carefully scrutinized by the Lower Court and the Lower Court has come to the conclusion that the accused was a juvenile in conflict with law as on the date of the alleged commission of the offence. We do not find any reason to discard the said conclusion arrived at by the Lower Court. Thus, we firmly hold that as on the date of the alleged commission of the offence, the accused was aged only 17 years, four months and 21 days, and thus, he was a juvenile in conflict with law, as defined in the Act. 4. Thus, we firmly hold that as on the date of the alleged commission of the offence, the accused was aged only 17 years, four months and 21 days, and thus, he was a juvenile in conflict with law, as defined in the Act. 4. Thus from the perusal of the judgment stated supra, on an earlier occasion, when the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.(MD)/No.441 of 2008, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.271/2007, dated 1.08.2008, imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Madurai, after extracting the 2nd report submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai, in relation to the enquiry conducted, to ascertain the actual age of the petitioner, on the date of commission of offences, the Hon'ble Division Bench after accepting the report and by holding that the petitioner was a Juvenile in conflict with law, as per the provisions of the Act, and placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Raju and another v. State of Harayana reported in 2010 (2) SCC (Crl)63: 2010 (3) SCC 235 , allowed the appeal and the conviction of the appellant/petitioner, under Section 450, 302 376(2)(f), 377 and 201 of IPC has been set aside. 5. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to extract paragraph Nos.9, 16 and 17 of the judgment in Raju and another v. State of Harayana reported in 2010 (2) SCC (Crl)63: 2010 (3) SCC 235 : “9. As far as Appellant 1, Raju, is concerned, Mr.Malhotra submitted that on the date of the incident (31-3-1994), he was a juvenile and as per his marksheet, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 1977, he was less than 17 years of age on the date of the incident. Mr.Malhotra submitted that having regard to the recent decision of this Court in Hari Ram . State of Rajasthan 1, Appellant I must be held to have been a minor on the date of the incident and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, would apply in his case. Mr.Malhotra, therefore, contended that Appellant I would have to be dealt with under the provisions of the said Act in keeping with the decisions in the aforesaid case. 16. Mr.Malhotra, therefore, contended that Appellant I would have to be dealt with under the provisions of the said Act in keeping with the decisions in the aforesaid case. 16. The appeal is, therefore allowed to the extent that the conviction of both the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is set aside and they are convicted instead under section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant 2 is sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500. In default of payment of such fine. Appellant 2 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. Appellant 2 shall be entitled to set-off in respect of the period of imprisonment already undergone in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. 17. As far as Appellant 1 is concerned, let his case be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned in terms of Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to be dealt with under the provisions of the said Act in keeping with the provision of Section 15 thereof and having particular regard to the period of detention already undergone by him during the course of the investigation and trial. The Registry is directed to take immediate steps for transmission of the records to the Juvenile Justice Board, concerned, as far as Appellant 1 is concerned. 6. At paras 11 to 13 of the judgment in C.A.(MD).No.441/2008, dated 25.11.2011, the Honourable Division Bench issued the following directions ;- “11. A similar view has also been expressed in Hariram vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2010 (1) SCC (Cri) 987: 2009 (13) SCC 211 .) 12. In view of the specific provisions contained in the Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments, cited supra, we have no other option, except to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges and to remit the matter back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, with a direction to the Board to hold necessary enquiry, as per the provision of the Act and dispose of the case in accordance with law, as the entire trial stand vitiated. In the result, the Criminal appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under all charges is set aside and the case is remitted back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, for disposal in accordance with the provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Juvenile justice Board, Madurai, is directed to dispose of the case within a period of four months form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Referred trial Case (MD) No.3 of 2008 is also disposed of accordingly.” 7. Now, reverting back to the case on hand, H.C.P.(MD) No.867 of 2014, the petitioner has contended that currently he is detained as a convict prisoner in Central Prison, Madurai, pursuant to the conviction and sentence, for life, imposed under Sections 302 and 377 IPC, in S.C.No.119 of 2008, dated 19.05.2009, on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai. According to him, on the date of occurrence i.e. 17.09.2006, in S.C.No.119/2008, for which he was charged and tried, he was only 17 years, 3 months and 16 days, as his date of birth was 01.06.1989. Certificate issued by the Headmaster, Thiruparankuntram, Union Middle School, Sinthamani, Madurai District, has been enclosed in the typed set of paper, in support of his contention that he was less than 18 years of age and thus a juvenile in conflict with law, on the date of commission of offence in S.C.No.119/2008, as per the provisions of the Act. 8. Indisputabley, on an earlier occasion in Crl.A.(MD)No.441/2008 and R.T.(MD).No.3 of 2008, dated 25.11.2011, the genuineness and the age of the petitioner, as per the certificate, wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 01.06.1989, by the Headmaster, Thiruparankuntram, Union Middle School, Sinthamani, Madurai District, had already been verified and that the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai has submitted a report dated 13.09.2010, after recording evidence of the witnesses, and enquiry conducted by him. We have also extracted the relevant paragraphs from the report in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment and therefore, there is no need for repetition. 9. We have also extracted the relevant paragraphs from the report in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment and therefore, there is no need for repetition. 9. We have also taken note of the fact that, in the earlier occasion, the Hon'ble Division Bench vide its judgment in Crl.A.(MD).No.441 of 2008 and R.T.(MD)No.3 of 2008 at paragraph 8, has also recorded that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was not in a position to point out any infirmity, in the report so as to discard the same. 10. Though the petitioner has filed an appeal against the judgment in S.C.No.271 of 2007, dated 01.08.2008, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Madurai, the same has been dealt with R.T.(MD)No.3 of 2008 and vide a common judgment dated 25.11.2011, the Hon'ble Division bench, has set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, for all the charges in S.C.No.271 of 2007. The only difference in this case is that, instead of preferring an appeal as against the conviction and sentence, in S.C.No.119 of 2008, dated 19.05.2009, on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai, the petitioner has preferred a Writ of habeas Corpus. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of occurrence in the present case was on 17.09.2006, is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 11. As per the earlier report, with reference to the age of the petitioner, the date of birth is shown as 01.06.1989, as per the certificate. On the date of occurrence in the present HCP, I.e. S.C.No.119/2008, the petitioner is aged 17 years 3 months and 10 days. On the date of commission of the offence, the petitioner was juvenile in conflict with law, as per the provisions of the Act and therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of the Act. 12. Perusal of the judgment in HCP (MD)No.312 of 2013, dated 08.07.2013, enclosed at page number 46 of the typed set of papers, shows that one A.Vijayaraman, has sought for a direction to the Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Jail, Madurai, respondent therein, to produce the detenu Ramajeyam, S/o.Alagarsamy, detained in Central Prison, Madurai in S.C.No.104 of 1991 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, and to set him at liberty. In H.C.P.No.312 of 2013, the writ petitioner therein was the brother of the detenu, lodged in judicial custody. Pursuant to conviction and sentence by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, on 09.10.1991 in S.C.No.104 of 1991, for the offences under Sections 302 and 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo imprisonment, for one year, for the offence, under Section 147 IPC. The appeal filed by him along with other accused was dismissed on 21.12.2000. Claiming that the detenu was a juvenile in conflict with law, at the time of commission of offence and therefore, entitled to the benefits of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, H.C.P. (MD).No.312/2013 has been filed. 13. After considering the rival submissions and taking note of the report of the learned Additional District Judge, Madurai, on the aspect of the age of the detenu therein, in S.C.No.104/1991, this Court in H.C.P.(MD).No.312/2013 has held that as the detenu therein was 17 years, 5 months and 4 days, on the date of commission of the offence, he is entitled to the benefits of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Hon'ble Division Bench has considered few decisions, which are worth reproduction. i) Kurpith Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 615 ), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an accused convict may be permitted to all stages to satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court that he was a juvenile on the date of alleged commission of the offence for which he might have been charged and ultimately convicted. If it is established that indeed that he was the juvenile on the date, the matter could be referred to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board from the stage of finding of the guilt. It would now be the Board which would pass appropriate order against convict have regard to the provisions of the Act. ii) Pradap Singh Vs. State of Jharkant ( 2005 3 SCC 551 ), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court discussed in detail the applicability of Sections 2(k), (l), 20 and 64 of the Act and held that the provision of the Act 2000, would be applicable to those cases, initiated and pending trial/enquiry for the offence committed under the Act 1986 provided that he person had not completed 18 years of age as on on 01.04.2001. iii) Valu @ Bakthavatchalu vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2008 1 MLJ (Crl.) 1378 (SC)) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “95. Section 20 of the Act of 2000 would, therefore, be applicable when a person is below the age of 18 years as on 01.04.2001. For the purpose of attracting Section 20 of the Act, it must be established that : (i) on the date of coming into force, the proceedings in which the petitioner was accused were pending; and (ii) on that day he was below the age of 18 years. For the purpose of the said Act, both the aforementioned conditions are required to be fulfilled. By reason of the provisions of the said Act of 2000, the protection granted to a juvenile has only been extended, but such extension is not absolute, but only a limited one. It would apply strictly when the conditions precedent therefore as contained in Section 20 or Section 64 are fulfilled. The said provisions repeatedly refer to the words “juvenile” or delinuent juveniles” specifically. This appears to be the object of the Act and for ascertaining the true intent of the Parliament, the rule of purposive construction must be adopted. The purpose of the Act wold stand defeated if a child continues to be in the company of an adult. Thus, the Act 2000 intends to give the protection only to a juvenile within the meaning of the said Act and not an Adult. In other words although it would apply to a person who is still a juvenile having not attained the age of 18 yeas but shall not apply to a person who has already attained the age of 18 years on the date of coming into force thereof or who had not attained the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence but has since ceased to be a juvenile.” iv) Darambee vs State of (CNCT of Delhi) and another ( 2010 5 SCC 344 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with detail Sections 7(A), 20 and 64 of the Act. The Court observed “What is to be noticed under Section 20 is that it means provision for continuance of trial which had been commenced prior to the coming into operation of the Act 2000”. The Court observed “What is to be noticed under Section 20 is that it means provision for continuance of trial which had been commenced prior to the coming into operation of the Act 2000”. While at the time of trial before the Court, if it was found that the Juvenile had committed an offence, the Court would be required to record such finding and instead of passing any sentence, forward the juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board which could then pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2000. 14. In paragraph No.26, of the finding in H.C.P.(MD).No.312 of 2013, dated 08.07.2013 the Division Bench has issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus and directed respondent therein to release the detenu forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case or cause. Though in H.C.P.(MD).No.312 of 2013, dated 08.07.2013, the Hon'ble Division Bench comprising S.RAJESWARAN,J and T.MATHIVANAN,J directed the detenu therein to be released, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the earlier direction in Crl.A. (MD).No.441 of 2008 and R.T. (MD).No.3 of 2008, by judgment dated 25.11.2011, is that, after setting aside the conviction and sentence, the matter has been remanded back to the file of Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. We wish to reiterate the same direction, in this habeas corpus petition also. 15. Accordingly, habeas corpus petition is allowed. As the petitioner has not challenged the conviction by way of an appeal, sentence imposed on the petitioner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.