JUDGMENT By the Court.—This criminal appeal arises from a judgement of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar dated 26.4.1983 convicting and sentencing the appellants to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 I.P.C and one and a half year RI under Section 147 I.P.C. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. As the appellant Rajpal has died and a report to this effect has been received from the C.J.M Bulandshahar dated 17.9.2007, the appeal against appellant Rajpal abates. The prosecution case was that the accused had made an electric line pass over the house of Rishal. This had been objected to by Rishal, where upon an altercation has ensued 7-8 days earlier and Rishal was threatened with dire consequences. On the date of incident i.e. 18.8.1982 at about 8.00 a.m when Rishal was taking his animals for grazing to the jungle in the village Adha, then the appellants surrounded him and assaulted him with lathis. On the cries of Rishal, PW-2 Shiv Charan, Naubat, Khajan, Inchha and PW-3 Yad Ram and informant Hari Ram PW-1, brother of deceased Rishal arrived. They saved Rishal, who had a number of injuries on his legs and hands. As his condition was serious, he was taken to Bulandshahar Hospital. A report of this incident was lodged by Hari Ram PW-1 at the police station Sikandrabad on 18.8.1982 at 3.30 p.m. The formal check report was drawn up by PW-5 Mahavir Singh. The deceased Rishal was medically examined by PW-8 Dr. R.R. Tyagi on 18.8.1982 at 10.30 a.m. He found the following injuries on his person: 1. A compound fracture in the lower part of left leg with traumatic swelling and bleeding and a lacerated wound 4" x 1 x bone with clotted blood. 2. Abrasion 1 1/2" x 1" on the dorsum of left foot with traumatic swelling on the whole foot. 3. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/0" x bone on the front of lower middle left leg. 4. Lacerated wound 1 1/2 x 1/4" x muscle in the web between left index and middle finger. 5. Traumatic swelling 4 1/2 X 3 1/2 on the dorsum of left hand with suspected fracture. 6. Traumatic swelling 4" x 3" over distal part and middle of left forearm. 7. Contusion with traumatic swelling 3" x 2" over the distal part of right forearm and the proximal part of right hand. 8. 5. Traumatic swelling 4 1/2 X 3 1/2 on the dorsum of left hand with suspected fracture. 6. Traumatic swelling 4" x 3" over distal part and middle of left forearm. 7. Contusion with traumatic swelling 3" x 2" over the distal part of right forearm and the proximal part of right hand. 8. Complaint of pain in back of both sides. Injuries were kept under observation and were caused by blunt object. The duration was fresh. Injury No. 1 was grevious. The injury report has been proved as ext. Ka-15. 3. The deceased died on 18.8.1982 at 8.00 P.M in the Hospital. PW-7 SI Mahendra Singh had conducted the inquest. After death the body was handed over to Constable Dharampal, who took the same for autopsy. PW-4 Dr. D.V. Singh conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased on 19.8.1982 at 5.15 p.m. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body: 1. Stitched lacerated wound 1 1/2 “long in the web in between the index and little finger. On removal of stitches a wound 1 1/2 x 1/4” x muscle deep was found. 2. Swelling 4 1/2 x 3 1/2 on the dorsum of left hand, with fracture of left middle finger, proximal phalynx. 3. Swelling 4" x 3" on the middle of left fore arm back, with fractrue of left radious underneath (Plastered). 4. Contusion 3" x 2" on the back of right wrist with fracture of right radious, lower end(Plastered). 5. Lacerated wound 4" x1" x bone on the front of left leg, lower third with fracture of both the underlying bones(Plastered). 6. Swelling (with abrasion 1 1/2 x 1") all over the left foot. 7. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/10" x bone on the front of left leg in the middle. 8. Swelling 4" x 2" on the left side of back lower part. The 7th and 8th ribs on the left side, below injury No. 8 were found fractured, on opening the body the lower lobe of the left lung was lacerated posteriorly 1" x 1/4" x 1/2". The pleura of the left lung was also ruptured and the pleural cavity had 1 pound of blood. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage, resulting from the ante-mortem injuries. The post-mortem report has been proved as Ext. Ka-3. PW-10, SO Prem Singh commenced the investigation of the case. The pleura of the left lung was also ruptured and the pleural cavity had 1 pound of blood. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage, resulting from the ante-mortem injuries. The post-mortem report has been proved as Ext. Ka-3. PW-10, SO Prem Singh commenced the investigation of the case. He proceeded to the spot and interrogated Shiv Charan and Inchha Ram. After spot inspection, he prepared the site plan Ext. Ka 17 and collected the fallen span of electric wire. The blood stained Dhoti of the victim was collected from the ‘Baithak’. The recovery memoes were prepared. 4. Sri C.P.D Sharma, the second I.O completed the investigation and examined Khajan, Naubat and also informant. He forwarded the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka 10). Apart from PW-5, Mahavir Singh, PW-8 Dr. R.R. Tyagi, PW-9 C.P.D. Sharma and PW-10, Prem Singh who are formal witnesses, whose roles have been mentioned above, the prosecution has also produced PW-6, Prem Prakash Manak Talia, S.D.O of Hydel department who has deposed that Ram Prakash was connecting a wire to his tube well and which line was made to run over the house of deceased Rishal for which he had made a complaint (Ext. Ka 1) dated 16.8.1982. Apart from the aforesaid formal witnesses, PW-1 informant brother of the deceased Rishal, PW-2 Shiv Charan and PW-3 Yad Ram are the eye-witnesses and witnesses of fact in this incident. 5. The plea of appellants Prakash, Naresh, Chatar Singh and Kiran Pal was of denial and they claim that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. The appellant Prakash has mentioned his age to be between 17-18 years in his 313 Cr.P.C statement which was recorded on 18.3.1983 and the appellant Naresh has given his age to be 18 years on 18.3.1983 in his 313 Cr.P.C statement and there were no adverse comments of the trial judge regarding these assertions. 6. The appellant Prakash has mentioned his age to be between 17-18 years in his 313 Cr.P.C statement which was recorded on 18.3.1983 and the appellant Naresh has given his age to be 18 years on 18.3.1983 in his 313 Cr.P.C statement and there were no adverse comments of the trial judge regarding these assertions. 6. We have heard Sri S.K. Tyagi and Sri S. Lal for the appellants Prakash and Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra for appellant Naresh and we have also appointed Sri S.K. Tyagi as Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellant Chatar Singh and Kiran Pal as his counsel Sri A.B.L. Gaur and Sri S.C. Rai have chosen not to appear in view of the law laid down in Bani Singh v. State of U.P., (1996)4 SCC 720 as recently reiterated in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, 2013 (3) SCALE 152, as we think no purpose would be served in sending further notice to the appellants, who were on bail and those appeals have been filed by the counsel. We have also heard Sri Anand Tiwari, learned A.G.A for the State. Learned counsel for the appellants have raised a few arguments on merits that the witnesses who have been examined in this case were all partisan and inimical to the accused appellants; that the FIR was delayed as the incident had taken place on 18.8.1982 at 10.00 a.m and the report was lodged at 3.30 p.m. However, the main submission has been that the nature of the assault on the deceased Rishal shows that the intention of the accused persons were only of beating him and not to murder him and also only lathi was used for causing injuries, no sharp edged or shooting weapons were utilized. The injuries were mainly on leg and hands and that so far as the appellant Prakash was concerned, he was aged between 17-18 years and the appellant Naresh was aged 18 years on 18.3.1983 i.e. the date of recording of their 313 Cr.P.C statements. The injuries were mainly on leg and hands and that so far as the appellant Prakash was concerned, he was aged between 17-18 years and the appellant Naresh was aged 18 years on 18.3.1983 i.e. the date of recording of their 313 Cr.P.C statements. Therefore, these two appellants would have been below 18 years on 18.8.1982 the date of incident and would be juveniles as defined by the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 and Rules 2007 and even if the conviction and sentence of the said appellants is maintained, under Section 304 part II I.P.C, then no sentence cannot now be awarded to them as 31 and half years have elapsed after the incident and the appellants are presently middle aged or old persons. 7. Learned A.G.A on the other hand argued that the evidence of witnesses is reliable. There was no reason for the witnesses to have falsely implicated the appellants for this crime. As nowadays absolutely independent person are unwilling to come forward to give evidence as they take the view that the matter does not concern them. The delay in the FIR was caused because the deceased, who was initially injured was taken for medical treatment. The incident had not take place immediately after the quarrel and a case under Section 302 I.P.C was disclosed. So far as merits of this matter are concerned, we find that even the appellants’ counsel has not very seriously tried to challenge the findings of the trial Court convicting the appellants. This fact cannot be denied that independent witnesses are usually unwilling to come forward to give evidence as they consider a crime to be a private dispute between the parties but no reason exists for the witnesses to have falsely implicated the appellants as three witnesses have already been produced. It was immaterial that three other persons, who were named in the FIR viz Inchha, Khajan and Naubat have not been produced. Learned A.G.A rightly pointed out that initially the delay in lodging the FIR at the police station Sikandrabad which was 8 km away was explained by the fact that the deceased, who was initially injured was first taken for medical treatment at 10.30 a.m and only later on the FIR was lodged at 3.30 P.M on the same day. Learned A.G.A rightly pointed out that initially the delay in lodging the FIR at the police station Sikandrabad which was 8 km away was explained by the fact that the deceased, who was initially injured was first taken for medical treatment at 10.30 a.m and only later on the FIR was lodged at 3.30 P.M on the same day. Therefore, we are satisfied that the evidence is reliable and the trial judge has rightly established the complicity of the appellants in this case. 8. However, the question which still remains for consideration is as to what was the proper offence for which the appellants ought to have been convicted. We find that a dispute between the parties had broken out over a petty matter viz the objection of the deceased Rishal to the appellants Prakash and others over drawing a electric line over his house. A quarrel had also taken place in that connection when the witnesses had warned him that he would face dire consequences. But significantly when the incident taken place on 18.8.1982 at 8.00 a.m when the deceased was going for grazing his animals to the jungle, the appellants only assaulted him with Lathi and Dandas on his feet and only injury No. 1 which is a compound fracture in the lower part of left leg with traumatic swelling and bleeding was described as grievous. There is no injury as per this injury report on any vital part. Even the post-mortem does not show any external injury on any vital part and the injury was mainly on the feet, although there is a fracture. The 7th and 8th ribs on the left side below injury No. 8 were found fractured. Also in the FIR itself it was only mentioned that the deceased had received injuries on his hands and legs. It may be noted that the FIR was registered only under Section 323, 325 and 147 I.P.C and it was not registered under Section 307 I.P.C on 18.8.1982 at 3.30 p.m. In this background it cannot be said that the appellants had any intention to cause the death of the deceased although the injuries cumulatively proved sufficient for causing the death of the deceased after about 12 hours, due to shock and heamhrroage from the ante-mortem injuries. However, we are of the view that looking to the nature of the injuries and the pettiness of the quarrel which had taken place about 32 years ago, it could not be inferred that injuries were caused with the intention of causing death or even with the intention of causing such bodily injuries as the offenders knew likely to cause death. 9. In these circumstances, at the highest we may infer that the injuries were caused with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injuries as were likely to cause death and the case clearly falls within the purview of Section 304 Part II I.P.C. As no intention to cause the death of the deceased Rishal or to cause such injuries as would cause his death could be imputed to the appellants, hence no offence under Section 304 (I) I.P.C is made out. We are therefore of the view that the appellants could properly be convicted under Section 304 part II I.P.C, instead of under Section 302 I.P.C. The next question which arises for consideration in this case is as to what would be the appropriate sentence that may be awarded to the appellants. 10. So far as the two surviving appellants Prakash and Naresh are concerned as Prakash has shown his age 17-18 and Naresh has shown his age 18 years on 18.3.1983 when their 313 Cr.P.C statements were recorded. Therefore, their age on the date of incident i.e on 18.8.1982 would have been below 18 years. It is true that no argument concerning the juvenile status of the appellants was raised before the trial Court. But we find that the appellants can only be considered to be juvenile i.e below 18 years in age after enactment of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 11. In Babu Khan and others v. State of U.P., 2000 (41) ACC 244, it has been held that if the Court considers the age mentioned by an accused under his 313 Cr.P.C statement to be incorrect, it may make observations to the contrary. 11. In Babu Khan and others v. State of U.P., 2000 (41) ACC 244, it has been held that if the Court considers the age mentioned by an accused under his 313 Cr.P.C statement to be incorrect, it may make observations to the contrary. If no doubt is raised about the correctness of the age as stated by the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C statement and the Court has not considered the same to be an under estimate or an overestimate and has not given his own estimate nor directed a medical examination of the accused, then the age mentioned by the accused should be accepted as genuine. Babu Khan’s case was also reiterated in Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., 1989 (26) ACC 285 (SC), for the proposition that if the correctness of the estimate of the age as given by the trial Court was neither doubted nor questioned by the State either in the High Court or in the Supreme Court, then the appellants should not be denied the benefit of the beneficent provisions. 12. Even though the appellants were not minor as per the then extant U.P. Children’s Act 1961, the definition of a child under Section 2(3) is a person under 16 years in age on the date when the offence was committed. However, after enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000, under Section 2(k), the definition of juvenile and juvenile in conflict with law means a person who has not completed 18 year of age on the date of commission of such offence, under Section 2(l) of said Act. Further, more in Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), SC 2010 (69) ACC 794 and in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2009 (13) SCC 211 , juvenility as per the said amendment has been given retrospective effect in view of the explanation to Section 20 of the said Act. Further, more in Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), SC 2010 (69) ACC 794 and in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2009 (13) SCC 211 , juvenility as per the said amendment has been given retrospective effect in view of the explanation to Section 20 of the said Act. Under the explanation to Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it is provided that in all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law in any Court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (1) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be a so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed”. 13. It is also provided under the first proviso to Section 7(A) of the said Act a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the commencement of this Act. Therefore, as the offence has taken place seven months prior to the examination of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they would clearly be under the age of 18 years on the date of offence, hence they would be considered as juveniles. As clearly the two appellants are presently over 18 years of age, at this stage the appellants Naresh and Prakash could not be sent to any approved school and this Court while converting the conviction of the appellants Naresh and Prakash to one under Section 304 part II I.P.C, is left with no option but to quash the sentence awarded to them. So far as the remaining two appellants Chatar Singh and Kiran Pal are concerned, as per their 313 Cr.P.C statements, they were 45 and 38 years in age on 18.3.1983 when their 313 Cr.P.C statement were recorded. So far as the remaining two appellants Chatar Singh and Kiran Pal are concerned, as per their 313 Cr.P.C statements, they were 45 and 38 years in age on 18.3.1983 when their 313 Cr.P.C statement were recorded. Therefore, after 31 years they would be 76 and 69 years in age. The principal dispute is also shown to be between Prakash and the deceased as Prakash is said to have drawn an electric line over the house of the deceased which was objected to by the deceased Rishal and that there was an exchange of hot words 7-8 days earlier to the incident, hence these two appellants were only assigned a common role alongwith the other two appellants. In this background we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellants Chatar Singh and Kiran Pal are awarded sentences of five years RI under Section 304, Part II in place of sentences of imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C awarded by the trial Court and the sentence of one and a half years RI under Section 147 I.P.C which was to run concurrently, is maintained. The sentence of these two appellants Chatar Singh and Kiran Pal shall be reduced by the period served out by them and the other remissions available in law and if the appellants have not served out the sentence including remissions as awarded above by us, they shall be taken into custody to serve out their remaining sentences. The appeal is therefore, partly allowed as above. Copy of this judgement be sent to the C.J.M concerned for compliance.