JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. Appellant herein Sri Ganesh Moran was convicted under section 302/34 of the IPC along with one Probeswar Phukan in connection with an incident which occurred on 15.04.2005 at about 7 P.M. for causing death of one Sarat Gohain. The victim was assaulted by a sharp weapon and was left on the village road in injured condition. The village people came to see the injured on 16.04.2005 at about 5.30 A.M. and took him to Bardumsha Government Hospital for treatment at about 5.30 A.M. where he died at about same time. Relying on the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 1, Tinsukia convicted the appellant Ganesh Moran along with Probeswar Phukan and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each under section 302/34 of the IPC. This judgment of conviction passed 25.10.2011 has been called in question in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 4 of 2012 by accused Ganesh Moran. Accused Probeswar Phukan also preferred another separate appeal being Criminal Appeal (J) No. 5 of 2012. 2. On 26.04.2016, when both these appeals were listed for hearing before a Division Bench of this court it came to light that appellant Ganesh Moran could be juvenile as on the date of occurrence i.e. 15.04.2005. Accordingly, this court by order dated 26.04.2016 directed the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 1, Tinsukia to hold inquiry for determining the age of accused Ganesh Moran. The learned Sessions Judge constituted a Medical Board consisting of Dr. NC Mahanta, Superintendent of Tinsukia Civil Hospital as Chairperson, Dr. GS Gogoi, SDM and HO as member, Dr. M Gogoi, Sr. M & HO as member and Dr. A Kumar, M & HO – I who held the opinion on the basis of physiological, dental and radiological assessment that estimated age of Ganesh Moran as on 28.07.2016 is around 21 years. This opinion of the Medical Board has been submitted to us along with report dated 17.08.2016. From the report and the opinion of Medical Board it is clear that accused Ganesh Moran was about 12 years of age on the date of occurrence and so he being a juvenile in conflict with law could not have been tried with an adult accused. From the report and the opinion of Medical Board it is clear that accused Ganesh Moran was about 12 years of age on the date of occurrence and so he being a juvenile in conflict with law could not have been tried with an adult accused. In the case of Anil Agarwala and another Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2012) 9 SCC 768 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the provision of Section 7A of the 2000 Act as well as Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and thereupon held that in the event an accused was found to be minor at the time of commission of offence, the juveniles are immediately required to be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for considering the case in accordance with the provisions of the 2000 Act. 3. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2000 Act’), received assent of the President on 30.12.2000 and it came into force on 01.04.2001 i.e. before the date of occurrence. Under section 2(l) of this Act, juvenile in conflict with law has been defined as a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed 18th year of age as on the date of commission of such offence. Section 7A of the 2000 Act, provides that if a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, the court shall make an enquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record such finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. A proviso appended to section 7A(1) of the 2000 Act clarifies that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage even after final disposal of the case and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules made there-under. Thus, it is clear that even after dismissal of the appeal it is possible to raise the issue of juvenility. Thus, it is clear that even after dismissal of the appeal it is possible to raise the issue of juvenility. Section 7A(2) of the 2000 Act further provides that if the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence under sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect. Thus, because of the deeming provision incorporated under section 7A(2) of the 2000 Act, any sentence becomes ineffective once it is established on inquiry under the Act and the Rules that the accused was a juvenile as on the date of commission of offence. 4. Central Government framed Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 under section 68 of the 2000 Act and Rule 12 thereof provides for the procedure to be followed in determination of age. Rule 12 is reproduced below for ready reference:- “12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age.– (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed of cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law.” 5. It is to be noted that in the present case there is no official record in support of date of birth of accused Ganesh Moran. He did not attend school. There is no birth certificate given by Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat. Under such circumstances, learned Sessions Judge was left with no other alternative but to take recourse to provision of Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for declaring age. It is provided in the said rule itself that if necessary, benefit to the child or the juvenile has to be given by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. 6. Once it is noticed that accused Ganesh Moran was a juvenile as on the date of commission of offence, his sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is required to be deemed to have no effect. Under normal procedure, he is liable to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders. 6. Once it is noticed that accused Ganesh Moran was a juvenile as on the date of commission of offence, his sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is required to be deemed to have no effect. Under normal procedure, he is liable to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders. Had the appellant been produced before Juvenile Justice Board in appropriate time in that event, in view of the evidence led, the appellant at best could have been ordered to be sent to a special home for a period of 3 years under Section 15(1)(g) of the 2000 Act. Although, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2015 Act’) but in view of the Section 25 of the 2015 Act, the provisions of the 2000 Act shall govern the present case. The question of classification of offence, therefore, under the 2015 Act cannot arise. It is also to be noticed here that the appellant Ganesh Moran has been in custody for more than 3 years already and so there is no question of sending him to Juvenile Justice Board for any further order. He has also attained the age of 21 years and in that view of the matter it would be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case to release the appellant Ganesh Moran from jail by setting aside the sentence passed against him. Accused Ganesh Moran be released from jail forthwith. 7. Appeal stands allowed. 8. Send down the lower court records.