JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant Gautam Patkar has preferred this appeal against the judgement and order dated 23.1.1998 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mahoba in S.T. No. 255 of 1995, who has found him guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that on 15.7.1995, the complainant PWI Rajendra Kumar Soni lodged an F.I.R. at 8:35 P.M. at police station-Mahoba, district-Mahoba, wherein it has been stated that his younger brother Mahendra Soni was stabbed by the appellant at about 7:30 P.M. In the first information report he has also made allegation against the appellant. 3. The younger brother of the complainant Mahendra Soni (deceased) was a student of Class-Xth in Mukund Lal School. About 5-6 days back he had some altercation with the accused Gautam Patkar who was also a student of same class. His brother had told him about the said quarrel about 5-6 days before the incident. On the fateful day Mahendra Soni (deceased) was asked to bring some grocery items from the general store, which is situated near the house of the complainant. At the same time the complainant went to betel (paan) shop owned by one Munna Chaurasiya. While returning from the shop he heard the shrieks of his younger brother and rushed to the spot where he saw that the appellant was stabbing his brother who was crying for help. At that point of time some other persons namely, Prem Chandra, elder brother of the deceased, Dashrath, Vinod Mishra and Sitaram Yadav also reached on the spot and they also saw the incident. After the said assault the victim was taken to the nearest Government Hospital on a Rikshaw by the complainant and Sitaram Yadav, where the doctors who were attending injured Mahendra Soni declared him dead. 4. The investigation of the case was entrusted to PW6 Sri Ramdev Trivedi who commenced the investigation. On 14.7.1995 he prepared the site plan. The inquest on the dead body of the deceased was prepared. During interrogation the accused confessed his crime and at his instance the police had recovered the weapon (knife) on 15.7.1995 which was used in crime and prepared the recovery memo. 5. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by PW3 Dr. During interrogation the accused confessed his crime and at his instance the police had recovered the weapon (knife) on 15.7.1995 which was used in crime and prepared the recovery memo. 5. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by PW3 Dr. Ashok Kumar on 14.7.1995 at 11:00 A.M., who issued the postmortem report (Ext.Ka-2). The Doctor has noted the following incised wounds on the dead body of the deceased :- "(1) Incised wound, size 3 cm x 1 cm x skin deep, situated in upper abdomen in midline, 5 cm below Xiphistanum. (2) Lacerated wound, 2 cm x 1cm x skin deep, situated in left anterior chest. It is 8 cm below the left nipple and 5 cm lateral to injury no. (1). (3) Incised stabbed wound, size 3 cm x 1.5 cm x abdominal cavity deep, just below left sub costal margin, 9.0 cm from the midline, abdominal content is coming out of wound. Probing can not be done . Advised- Plan X-ray Abdomen (Standing position). Kept under observation. (4) Incised wound, 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm x muscle deep, situated in right lumber region, 5.0 cm below sub costal margin. (5) Incised wound 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm x muscle deep, situated just below medial third of the left inguinal legaments 08.0 cm from left anterio-superior illiac spine. (6) Incised wound, size 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on posterior medial aspect of right hand just, just below to wrist joint. (7) incised wound 3 cm x 0.5cm x muscle deep on posterior medial aspect of right hand just below to injury no. 6. (8) Incised wound 4cm x 1.0 cm x muscle deep on posterio-medial aspect of right hand 2 cm below to injury no. 7. (9) Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep posterior lateral aspect of left upper arm. 8.0 cm above the allerauos process. (10) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1cm x muscle deep on posterior lateral aspect of left forearm 5 cm from left allerauos process." 6. According to the opinion of Doctor the cause of death was excessive bleeding due to haemorrhage. 7. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The matter was sent to the Session Court for trial. 8. According to the opinion of Doctor the cause of death was excessive bleeding due to haemorrhage. 7. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The matter was sent to the Session Court for trial. 8. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined six witnesses namely, PW1 Rajendra Kumar Soni, the real brother of the deceased, who was said to be present at the time of occurrence of the incident. PW2 Dashrath Prasad, who is stated to be an eye witness was present at the time of occurrence of the incident. PW3 Dr. Ashok Kumar had conducted autopsy, PW4 Dr. S.D. Tripathi, PW5 Lakhan and PW6 Ramdev Trivedi was Investigating Officer are the formal witnesses. 9. The trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court also found that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are trustworthy and has recorded the finding that appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court has not accepted the defence version and that PW2 was a chance witness and the testimony of PW1 should be discarded on the ground that he is interested witness. 10. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case and pleaded not guilty. 11. During pendency of this appeal an application was moved by the appellant to declare him juvenile on 1.12.2016. This Court referred the matter to Juvenile Justice Board for its report. The appellant had filed several documentary evidence including the mark sheet of High School Examination which he could not pass, his Roll No. is shown 1947213. In the mark sheet the date of birth of the appellant has been mentioned as 10.6.1978. The Headmaster of the school from where he received his first education was also summoned with record. After considering the evidence on record the Juvenile Justice Board has recorded a finding that on the date of occurrence, i.e. 13.7.1995 the appellant was juvenile and his age was 17 years 1 month and 4 days. 12. We have very carefully examined the report of Juvenile Justice Board. We agree with the finding recorded by the Board declaring the appellant as juvenile. 13. 12. We have very carefully examined the report of Juvenile Justice Board. We agree with the finding recorded by the Board declaring the appellant as juvenile. 13. We have heard Sri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 14. Sri N.K. Tiwari, Advocate who has put his appearance on behalf of the complainant has not challenged the finding of Juvenile Justice Board. 15. From the version of the F.I.R., statements of witnesses and the judgement of the trial Court the following facts emerge. 16. On 13.7.1995 the victim Mahendra Soni was going to purchase some grocery items from a nearby shop, when he reached near the Peepal tree which was opposite the house of Ex-MLA his neighbour, he was attacked by the appellant with whom some altercation had taken place with him about 5-6 days back. When he was attacked by the appellant he sounded alarm for help, upon hearing his shrieks his real brother PW1 Rajendra Kumar Soni who had gone to betel (paan) shop rushed to the spot. He saw that the appellant was stabbing his brother Mahendra Soni with knife, who had received several injuries and fell down on the ground. At that point of time some other persons namely, Prem Chandra, elder brother of the victim, Dashrath, Vinod Mishra and Sitaram Yadav had also seen the said incident and they also rushed to the place of occurrence. PW1 Rajendra Kumar Soni with the help of Sitaram Yadav took the victim on a Rikshaw and reached the nearby Government Hospital which was about 1 km. from the place of occurrence. He admitted his brother and Doctor has examined his brother but his brother succumbed and died. After the death of his brother he wrote a complaint to Police, on the basis of which the first information report was registered at the police station on 13.7.1995 at 8:35 P.M. PW4 the Doctor has found several incised wounds which were caused by the repeated knife blow on the victim Mahendra Soni. In his statement he has categorically stated that the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding and the incised wounds which were inflicted on the body of the victim. In his statement he has categorically stated that the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding and the incised wounds which were inflicted on the body of the victim. PW1 Rajendra Kumar Soni has deposed that the victim was his younger brother, who was studying in Mukundlal Tiwari Government Inter College, Mahoba in Class-X. His house is situated in Mohalla Dhalaitanpurva, Mahoba and the police station is also on the same road towards South of his house. The house of M.L.A. Chottey Lal Mishra is situated just opposite his house. A 'Pipal' tree is near his house. The house of the accused is 3-4 houses towards South of Mishra's house. He has further stated that one Munna Chaurasiya runs a Beetal shop near the house of Rajesh. 17. On 13.7.1995 at about 7:30 P.M. when his brother was going to purchase some grocery items from the general store, after few minutes he heard the shrieks of his brother for the help. Upon hearing the noise his elder brother Prem Chandra, Dashrath, Vinod Mishra and some other people who were present there saw the incident, thereafter he rushed towards the spot but the accused showing the knife threatening had fled away towards Madan Sagar. He along with Sitaram took his brother to the hospital on a Rikshaw. He also stated that 4-5 days before the incident there was a wordy altercation between his deceased brother and the accused, who had threatened his deceased brother with dire consequences. The victim had complained him. The PW1 advised his brother to focus on his studies and not to be engaged in such type of activities. In the cross-examination the defence could not elicit any material discrepancy in his statement. PW2 Dashrath Prasad is also an eye witness. He has stated in his evidence that on 13.7.1995 at about 7:30 P.M. in Mohalla Dhalaitanpurva, Mahoba he had gone to the house of his Advocate Laxmi Prasad, while returning from his house at the tri-crossing near the betel shop he heard the shrieks of 'Bachao-Bachao' and when he reached the place from where the cries for help was raised he found that the accused was stabbing the victim Mahendra who was lying unconscious at that place. He saw several injuries which were caused by the knife on the body of the victim. He saw several injuries which were caused by the knife on the body of the victim. He further stated that PW1 complainant Rajendra Kumar Soni and Sita Ram took the injured on a Rikshaw and they had gone to Government Hospital. 18. In his cross-examination he has reiterated the same facts. He has stated that the distance from the place of occurrence to the Government Hospital was walk able and it would have taken 5-7 minutes by Rikshaw. 19. Sri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was discrepancy in the statement of PW1 and it was not clear that the occurrence had taken place at the place where he has pointed out. He further submitted that the presence of PW1 at the place of incident is also highly doubtful. Moreover PW1 is the real brother of the deceased thus he is an interested witness. He further submitted that PW2 Dashrath Prasad is a resident of another village and he was a chance witness and his statement does not inspire confidence. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that after 8-10 days of the incident the police had recorded the statement of the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He lastly submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court is perverse and the trial Court has not appreciated the statements of PW1 and PW2 in proper perspective. 21. Learned A.G.A. has supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and submitted that the presence of PW1 Rajendra Kumar Soni and PW2 Dashrath Prasad is probable and natural. PW1 was present at the place of occurrence but his statement could not be recorded within ten days as he had gone to Chatarpur, Madhya Pradesh. He further submitted that the presence of PW1 on the place of occurrence can not be doubted. He took the injured to hospital immediately and promptly lodged the first information report. He lastly submitted that on the pointing out of the accused the recovery of blood stained knife was made by the police. On the basis of forensic analysis it was found that blood stained found on the knife was human blood. No other submission has been made by learned A.G.A. 22. The Doctor who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased has deposed that the deceased had received total ten incised wounds. On the basis of forensic analysis it was found that blood stained found on the knife was human blood. No other submission has been made by learned A.G.A. 22. The Doctor who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased has deposed that the deceased had received total ten incised wounds. The cause of his death was excessive bleeding due to the said injuries. According to him the injuries were caused by knife. He has proved the post mortem report issued by Dr. S.D. Tripathi. 23. We have carefully analysed the statements of the witnesses, postmortem report and the findings recorded by the trial Court, we find that PW1 Rajendra Kumar Soni is the real brother of the deceased has given true narration of the fact. From the statements as well as cross-examination of the witnesses, it is well established that the appellant had caused several injuries to the deceased Mahendra Soni. There is no inconsistency in the deposition of PW1 who is the real brother of the deceased and was present on the spot. We do not have any reason to doubt his presence at the place of occurrence. 24. Despite lengthy cross-examination the defence has failed to point out any material contradiction. We are of the view that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and has analyzed all the material aspect of the matter. 25. Considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in its entirety, we think that trial Court is right in recording the finding that appellant has caused the injuries on the vital part of the body of the deceased, hence we affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court that the appellant is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. We also find that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has not committed any error in awarding the sentence of imprisonment for life to the appellant who has caused the death of a young boy of fifteen years of age brutally. 26. Accordingly, we also affirm the quantum of punishment awarded by the trial Court to the appellant. However, in view of the fact that during pendency of the appeal an amendment has been made under Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 26. Accordingly, we also affirm the quantum of punishment awarded by the trial Court to the appellant. However, in view of the fact that during pendency of the appeal an amendment has been made under Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The age of the juvenile has been enhanced from 16 to 18 years. The Juvenile Justice Board found that on the date of incident the appellant was 17 years 1 month and 4 days old, hence he was juvenile on the date of occurrence, i.e. 13.7.1995. 27. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Vijay Singh vs. State of Delhi1 that if the appellant has not crossed the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence of incident and the plea of juvenile was raised for the first time before the Court, it can pass order itself without sending the matter back to Juvenile Board. The relevant part of the judgement reads thus:- "Having regard to the above conclusion, in the normal course we would have remitted the matter to the Juvenile Justice Court, Itawa for disposal in accordance with law. However, since the offence was alleged to have been committed more than 10 years ago and having regard to the course adopted by this Court in certain other cases reported in Jayendra v. State of U.P.2 Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P.3 which were subsequently followed in Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar4 Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.5 Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar6 and Vaneet Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab7, we are of the view that at this stage when the appellant would have now crossed the age of 30 years, there is no point in remitting the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Court. Instead, following the above referred decisions, appropriate orders can be passed by this Court itself. " 28. A similar view has been taken in the case of Salil Bali vs. Union of India 2013 (7) SCC 705 . 29. When we apply the aforesaid principle on the facts of this case, we find that offence was committed more than 22 years ago, now the appellant is about 40 years old, hence no fruitful purpose will serve by sending the matter back to Juvenile Board. 29. When we apply the aforesaid principle on the facts of this case, we find that offence was committed more than 22 years ago, now the appellant is about 40 years old, hence no fruitful purpose will serve by sending the matter back to Juvenile Board. We are of the view that the appellant who has been sentenced to life imprisonment, has already undergone 3 years, 8 months and 3 days. Hence, the sentence is set aside as he has already undergone more than 3 years stipulated period. 30. The appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, we affirm the findings of the trial Court but in view of the provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, we modify the quantum of sentence to the above effect. 31. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His personal bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 32. Let a copy of this judgement and Lower Court record be sent to the court below for its intimation and compliance. 33. Judgement be certified and placed on record.