JUDGMENT : ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.6.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.374 of 1999 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur at Surguja convicting and sentencing the accused/Appellants as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation Under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation Under Section 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.200/- each with default stipulation Under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.8.1999 at about 5:00 p.m., Balkumari (PW11) was standing up before her house and her husband Jagarnath (PW10) was inside the house. At that time, Appellant No.4, Bhisam alias Bhima along with his friends teased her. Having heard noise, her husband came out of the house. He abused Bhisam and his friends on which they ran away. At about 9:00 p.m., when Balkumari was taking meals along with her children, her cousin Ramkishun (PW14) was standing up near the door of her house. At that time, the accused/Appellants entered her house and started beating Ramkishun and Jagarnath. When she intervened, the accused/Appellants assaulted her also with danda. Having heard noise, her neighbour Suryapal (deceased) came there. He was also assaulted by the accused/Appellants with danda. As a result of the assault, he sustained injury on the head and face and fell down. Having seen the villagers coming toward the accused/Appellants, they fled from there. Jagarnath and Suryapal were taken to the hospital. Suryapal died during treatment. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P10) was lodged by Balkumari (PW11). Inquest (Ex.P5) was prepared on 27.8.1999. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. M.K. Jain (PW18). His report is Ex.P34A in which he found following injuries: 1. Three lacerated wounds over the middle of jaw and left side, size 1½ cm x ½ cm to 1 cm x ½ cm, bone deep with multiple depressed fracture of mandibles 2. Small incised wound, in both upper and lower lip of left side 3. Small lacerated wound over the left eyebrow with block eye, left side 4. One lacerated wound over the left side cheek, 1 cm x ½ cm 5. Small incised wound, in both upper and lower lip of left side 3. Small lacerated wound over the left eyebrow with block eye, left side 4. One lacerated wound over the left side cheek, 1 cm x ½ cm 5. One incised wound over the left occipital region, 3 cm x ½ cm 6. Three big contusions over the anterior aspect of chest, 11” x 3” 7. One lacerated wound over the right pinna of ear 2 cm x ½ cm On dissection of the dead body, he found following injuries: 1. There is multiple depressed fracture of mandible seen, 4 pieces seen in mickle and left side of mandible and one depressed fracture of right angle of mandible seen 2. Depressed fracture of maxilla with loss of upper teeth, upper right side of maxilla with teeth impacted in deep part of throat post part of pharynx 3. Depressed fracture of nose with depressed fracture of maxilla and left side of zygomatic bone 4. Fracture of sternum with fracture of ribs in left side – 2nd to 4th ribs fracture 5. Both lungs are grossly congested with blood 6. Smell of alcohol in stomach Cause of death was opined by him to be asphyxia resulted by airway obstruction due to multiple grievous injuries and the nature of death was opined to be homicidal. On 27.8.1999, First Information Report (Ex.P33) was registered on the basis of Dehati Nalishi. During investigation, memorandum statement (Ex.P21) of Appellant No.1, Rustam and memorandum statement (Ex.P22) of Appellant No.4, Bhisam were recorded. One iron khukhari was seized from Appellant No.4, Bhisam vide Ex.P23. One knife was seized from Appellant No.1, Rustam vide Ex.P15. One terricot full-pant was also seized from Appellant No.1 vide Ex.P16. Memorandum statement (Ex.P20) of Appellant No.2, Ganesh was recorded and a piece of bahinga made of wood was seized from him vide Ex.P17. One vest stained with blood was also seized from him vide Ex.P18. Plain and blood stained soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P12. Jagarnath was medically examined by Dr. B.P. Chandra (PW15) vide Ex.P27. Balkumari was also examined by Dr. B.P. Chandra vide Ex.P28. Ramkishun (PW14) was medically examined by Dr. Habib (PW16) vide Ex.P30. One vest stained with blood was also seized from him vide Ex.P18. Plain and blood stained soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P12. Jagarnath was medically examined by Dr. B.P. Chandra (PW15) vide Ex.P27. Balkumari was also examined by Dr. B.P. Chandra vide Ex.P28. Ramkishun (PW14) was medically examined by Dr. Habib (PW16) vide Ex.P30. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 450, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Charges were framed against them under Sections 147, 148, 452/149, 323/149, 302/149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. To rope in the accused/Appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses. Statement of the accused/Appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the guilt. No witness has been examined in their defence. 4. After trial, the Trial Court acquitted accused Manoj son of Laxman, accused Sera son of Soharnath and accused Santosh son of Awadhesh of the charges framed against them, but convicted and sentenced the accused/Appellants as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal by the Appellants. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused/Appellants argued that Balkumari (PW11), Ramkishun (PW14) and Jagarnath (PW10) did not know Appellant No.1, Rustam, Appellant No.2, Ganesh and Appellant No.3, Samat from earlier. The FIR was lodged on the date of incident itself in which only the name of Appellant No.4, Bhisam is mentioned. Appellants No.1, 2 and 3 have been later on falsely implicated. No identification parade was conducted in respect of Appellants No.1, 2 and 3. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated about Appellant No.3 in their Court statements. The prosecution witnesses have taken names of Appellants No.1 and 2 in their Court statements, but their names are not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the case of the prosecution against Appellants No.1 and 2 is suspicious. Since Appellant No.4, Bhisam had worked in the house of Balkumari and Jagarnath and some dues was to be paid by them to Appellant No.4, therefore, he has been falsely implicated on the ground of this dispute. 6. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment. 7. Since Appellant No.4, Bhisam had worked in the house of Balkumari and Jagarnath and some dues was to be paid by them to Appellant No.4, therefore, he has been falsely implicated on the ground of this dispute. 6. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment. 7. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 8. In this case, there are 3 eyewitnesses, namely, Jagarnath (PW10), Balkumari (PW11) and Ramkishun (PW14). First, we shall examine the Court statements of these three eyewitnesses. 9. Balkumari (PW11) has stated that on 26.8.1999 at about 5:00 p.m., she was standing up behind her house. At that time, Appellant No.1 Rustam, Appelllant No.2 Ganesh and Appellant No.4 Bhisam came there and started scuffling with her and they teased her. She began to scold them. Having heard the noise, her husband Jagarnath (PW10) and Nanhuram (PW6) came there and prevented them. On this, these three accused/Appellants caused Nanhuram to fall down. When her husband intervened, they fled from there. Appellant No.1, Rustam, while going away warned that they would see them. She has further stated that at about 9:00 p.m., when she was taking dinner with her family members at her house, her cousin Ramkishun (PW14) was also present in the dinner. She has further stated that Ramkishun went out of her house and when he returned inside the house, he told that many persons were coming towards their house armed with lathi and danda. 7-8 persons entered their house. They started beating her and her husband. She came out of the house and shouted. Kabina Kujur (PW9), Suryapal (deceased) and many other persons reached there. She has further stated that since her husband had sustained many injuries and had become unconscious, she had gone inside her house. Therefore, she was unable to tell that who assaulted Suryapal. She has further stated that the assailants had also assaulted Ramkishun. She has categorically stated that during the assault, she had identified accused Rustam, Ganesh, Bhisam and Samat. As per the statement of this witness, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P10) was recorded. In paragraph 21 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that in the Dehati Nalishi, she had not named accused Samat. She has further stated that the assailants had also assaulted Ramkishun. She has categorically stated that during the assault, she had identified accused Rustam, Ganesh, Bhisam and Samat. As per the statement of this witness, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P10) was recorded. In paragraph 21 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that in the Dehati Nalishi, she had not named accused Samat. She has further admitted that she had taken the name of accused Samat in the Court for the first time and she had come to know his name from other persons. Regarding accused Rustam and Ganesh, she has denied the suggestion that she had not named accused Rustam and Ganesh in the Dehati Nalishi. But, a perusal of the Dehati Nalishi shows that the names of accused Rustam and Ganesh are not mentioned therein. But, in her statement (Ex.D2) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 27.8.1999, i.e., just next day of the incident, she has mentioned the names of accused Rustam and Ganesh also. In paragraph 11 of her deposition, she has admitted that she had seen accused Rustam and Ganesh first time in her life at the time of incident itself. In paragraph 23, she has stated that no identification parade was conducted by the police. 10. Jagarnath (PW10), husband of Balkumari has stated that he knew only accused Rustam, Ganesh and Bhisam. He has further deposed that at the time of incident at about 5:00 p.m., accused Rustam, Bhisam and Ganesh had abused her wife Balkumari (PW11). At that time, he and Nanhuram (PW6) had gone there. These three accused had caused Nanhuram to fall down and warning that they will come again, ran away from there. He has further stated that at about 9:00 p.m., when he was at home along with his family members, these three accused and other 8 persons came inside his house and started assaulting Ramkishun (PW14), him and his wife. He has further stated that his wife shouting went out of the house. On this, Suryapal came there. The assailants assaulted Suryapal also. He has further stated that due to the assault, he fell unconscious. Later on, he came to know that Suryapal had died. In paragraph 9, he has admitted that he had seen accused Rustam and Ganesh for the first time at the time of incident. He knew only accused Bhisam from earlier. The assailants assaulted Suryapal also. He has further stated that due to the assault, he fell unconscious. Later on, he came to know that Suryapal had died. In paragraph 9, he has admitted that he had seen accused Rustam and Ganesh for the first time at the time of incident. He knew only accused Bhisam from earlier. In paragraph 20 of his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he did not know accused Samat nor did he tell his name to the police. In paragraph 18, he has admitted that there was no previous enmity with accused Rustam, Ganesh and Bhisam. 11. Ramkishun (PW14), the other eyewitness of the incident has stated that at about 8:00 p.m., he had gone to the house of his brother-in-law Jagarnath (PW10) and after taking dinner he was sitting in the courtyard of the house. He saw that 7-8 persons were coming towards the house of Jagarnath. He told about this to Jagarnath. Jagarnath asked him to put a lamp outside. He taking a lamp outside began to peep in the light. At that time, the persons coming towards the house of Jagarnath reached there and began to assault him and Jagarnath. He has further stated that when he began to run away, 3 assailants chased him. On the way, Suryapal met him. He told him about the incident. He has further stated that Suryapal went to the house of Jagarnath. He saw that 3-4 assailants were assaulting Jagarnath. Having seen this, he ran away from there. He has categorically stated that he did not identify any of the assailants except acquitted accused Santosh and Manoj. He is the witness of memorandum statements (Ex.P20, P21, P22) and seizure (Ex.P15, P16, P17 and P23), but he has not supported the above memorandum statements and seizure memo and has been declared hostile. 12. Kotwar Nanhuram (PW6) is the witness of memorandum (Ex.P22) of accused Bhisam and seizure (Ex.P23), but he has not supported the said memorandum and seizure and has been declared hostile. 13. Constable Mansingh (PW2) is the witness who had taken the dead body of Suryapal for post mortem examination. 14. Sunil Sarkar (PW3) has stated that Balkumari (PW11), wife of Jagarnath, saying Bachao Bachao, was shouting for help. He saw Jagarnath (PW10) in injured condition. He had sustained injuries on the head and hands and had fallen unconscious. 13. Constable Mansingh (PW2) is the witness who had taken the dead body of Suryapal for post mortem examination. 14. Sunil Sarkar (PW3) has stated that Balkumari (PW11), wife of Jagarnath, saying Bachao Bachao, was shouting for help. He saw Jagarnath (PW10) in injured condition. He had sustained injuries on the head and hands and had fallen unconscious. He was taken to the hospital. He has further stated that the wife of Jagarnath had told him that some persons had entered her house and assaulted them. 15. Ajit Mandal (PW4) has stated that he was sleeping. At about 9:30 p.m., having heard the noise, he came out of his house and saw that both Jagarnath and Suryapal were in injured condition. Both were taken to the hospital. He has further stated that later on in the night, Jagarnath told him that accused Bhisam and his friends had assaulted him. But, this fact is not mentioned in his case diary statement. 16. Krishna Sarkar (PW5) has stated that having heard the noise, he went to the spot. He saw both Jagarnath and Suryapal in injured condition. Both were taken to the hospital. Later on, he came to know that Suryapal died. 17. Nanhuram (PW6) has stated that Kabina Kujur (PW9) came to his house and told him that Jagarnath (PW10) and Suryapal were assaulted by some persons. He has further stated that he went to the spot, where he saw that Jagarnath and Suryapal were being taken to the hospital. Later on, he came to know that Suryapal died. He has further stated that next day, at about 4:00 a.m., Jagarnath told him that accused Bhisam and his friends had assaulted him. But, this fact is also not mentioned in his case diary statement. 18. Kabina Kujur (PW9), other eyewitness of the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 19. Preetlal (PW12) is the witness of seizure (Ex.P11). He has stated that knife, sleeper, cap, piece of brick and danda were seized in his presence from the courtyard of the house of Jagarnath (PW10). 20. Pannalal (PW13) is the witness of seizure (Ex.P12 and P13). Vide Ex.P12, plain and blood stained soil were seized from the spot. Vide Ex.P13, one pair of sleeper was seized from the spot. He has stated that knife, sleeper, cap, piece of brick and danda were seized in his presence from the courtyard of the house of Jagarnath (PW10). 20. Pannalal (PW13) is the witness of seizure (Ex.P12 and P13). Vide Ex.P12, plain and blood stained soil were seized from the spot. Vide Ex.P13, one pair of sleeper was seized from the spot. Vide Ex.P14, one stool made of wood, one pair of sleeper made of rubber, one cap and one rope were seized from the spot. He has supported these seizures. He is the witness of seizure (Ex.P15 to P19) and memorandum (Ex.P21), but he has not supported the said seizure and memorandum and, therefore, has been declared hostile. 21. Dr. B.P. Chandra (PW15) has deposed that Jagarnath (PW10), Suryapal (deceased) and Balkumari (PW11) were brought to the hospital on 26.8.1999 in injured condition. After their admission in the hospital, Suryapal died during treatment. He intimated the police about death of Suryapal vide Ex.P25 and also intimated the police about the admission of Jagarnath and his wife Balkumari in the hospital vide Ex.P24 and P26. He has further stated that on 27.8.1999, he had examined and prepared medical examination report of Jagarnath vide Ex.P27 in which he opined that the injuries suffered by Jagarnath could be caused by a hard and blunt object. Injuries No.2, 3 and 5 were simple in nature and the nature of rest of the injuries suffered by him could be reported only after x-ray examination. He also examined Balkumari. His report is Ex.P28 in which he found single lacerated wound over left parietal region of scalp of size 3 cms x 0.5 cm, skin deep with clotted blood present and opined that the injury suffered by Balkumari could be caused by a hard and blunt object and the nature of the injury suffered was simple. 22. Dr. Habib (PW16) examined Ramkishun (PW14) on 27.8.1999. His report is Ex.P30 in which he opined that the injuries suffered by Ramkishun could be caused by a hard and blunt object and the nature of injuries were simple. 23. Dr. M.K. Jain (PW18) is the witness who took out x-ray of Jagarnath (PW10) and gave report (Ex.P32) in which he found no bony injury on the head. He found compound fracture in left hand over radius and ulna bones. 23. Dr. M.K. Jain (PW18) is the witness who took out x-ray of Jagarnath (PW10) and gave report (Ex.P32) in which he found no bony injury on the head. He found compound fracture in left hand over radius and ulna bones. On 27.8.1999, he conducted post mortem examination of Suryapal and gave report (Ex.P34A). In Ex.P34A, he has reported the injuries aforementioned in this judgment and cause of death was opined by him to be asphyxia resulted by airway obstruction due to multiple grievous injuries and the nature of death was opined to be homicidal. 24. Patwari Sanjay Singh (PW17) prepared spot-map (Ex.P31). Sub- Inspector Indrapal Singh (PW20) is the witness who investigated the alleged offence. Ward Boy Pramod Kumar (PW21) is the witness who, on 26.8.1999, took memo of the doctor to the police station. Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex.P44. Teslal (PW22) is the witness before whom inquest (Ex.P5) was prepared. 25. On minute examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution story is mainly based on the evidence of Balkumari (PW11), Jagarnath (PW10), Ramkishun (PW14) and the medical evidence. From the said evidence, it is clear that accused Bhisam had already worked in the house of Jagarnath and Balkumari and both the witnesses were acquainted with accused Bhisam. Both these witnesses did not know accused Rustam, Ganesh and Samat from earlier. From the statements of Ramkishun, Jagarnath and Balkumari, it is clear that at about 5:00 p.m., accused Bhisam and some of his friends had teased Balkumari on which a dispute had arisen. It is further clear from their evidence that accused Bhisam and his friends ran away at that time. Later on, at about 9:00 p.m., accused Bhisam along with 7-8 persons came to the house of Balkumari and all of them assaulted Ramkishun, Jagarnath and Balkumari. When Suryapal tried to intervene, he was also assaulted by all the assailants and as a result of which Suryapal later on died. Jagarnath had sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in the medical and x-ray examinations reports (Ex.P27 and P32) and Balkumari and Ramkishun had sustained simple injuries as mentioned in their medical examinations reports (Ex.P28 and P30, respectively). 26. In his Court statement, Ramkishun (PW14) has stated that he did not identify any of the accused. Jagarnath (PW10), in his evidence, has taken the names of accused Rustam, Ganesh and Bhisam only. 26. In his Court statement, Ramkishun (PW14) has stated that he did not identify any of the accused. Jagarnath (PW10), in his evidence, has taken the names of accused Rustam, Ganesh and Bhisam only. He has categorically stated that accused Samat was not present at the time of occurrence. Balkumari (PW11) has also admitted that she had taken the name of accused Samat for the first time during her Court statement and that too she took his name in the Court statement on his name being told to her by some other persons. Though in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P10) only the name of accused Bhisam is mentioned yet in her statement (Ex.D2) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded just next day of the incident, i.e., on 27.8.1999, Balkumari has named accused Rustam and Ganesh also. In her Court statement also, she has named both accused Rustam and Ganesh along with accused Bhisam. Jagarnath has also named accused Rustam, Ganesh and Bhisam in his Court statement. Balkumari and Jagarnath have admitted in their Court statements that there was no previous enmity between them and accused Rustam, Ganesh and Bhisam. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that accused Rustam and Ganesh are being falsely implicated with accused Bhisam by Balkumari and Jagarnath. 27. As per the statement of Dr. B.P. Chandra (PW15) and the medical examination report (Ex.P28) of Balkumari (PW11) and the statement of Dr. Habib (PW16) and the medical examination report (Ex.P30) of Ramkishun (PW14), both Ramkishun and Balkumari had sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P28 and P30 and the injuries sustained by them were simple in nature. As per the medical examination report (Ex.P27) of Jagarnath (PW10), he had sustained total 7 injuries. Injuries No.3 and 4 were present on the forehead, injuries No.5, 6 and 7 were present on the head and injury No.1 was present on the left hand. As per the x-ray report (Ex.P32), compound fracture was found in radius and ulna bones of left hand. As per the post mortem report (Ex.P34A) of Suryapal, injuries No.1 and 5 were present on the vital parts of his body. Multiple depressed fractures of mandibles were found. Depressed fracture of maxilla with loss of upper teeth was found. Depressed fracture of nose with depressed fracture of maxilla was also found. 2nd to 4th ribs were also found fractured. 28. Multiple depressed fractures of mandibles were found. Depressed fracture of maxilla with loss of upper teeth was found. Depressed fracture of nose with depressed fracture of maxilla was also found. 2nd to 4th ribs were also found fractured. 28. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that there was no quarrel between the accused/Appellants and Jagarnath (PW10) and Balkumari (PW11). The dispute which had arisen due to teasing of Balkumari was the reason of the incident in question. There was no dispute between the accused/Appellants and deceased Suryapal. Suryapal was assaulted only when he had tried to intervene in the incident. Therefore, it is not established that the assailants had any intention to kill Suryapal. Similarly, out of the injuries suffered by Jagarnath, only the injury present on the left hand was grievous in nature and rest of his injuries were simple in nature. The injuries sustained by him was the result of a sudden quarrel took place between the parties. Therefore, there appears no intention on the part of the assailants to commit murder of Jagarnath. From the evidence, it is also clear that there is no evidence against accused/Appellant Samat. He is entitled to get benefit of doubt. From the evidence, no offence is made out against accused/Appellant Samat, therefore, he is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. Against accused/Appellants Rustam, Ganesh and Bhisam, the offence alleged under Section 302/34 IPC is not made out and instead thereof their offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC. Similarly, there appears no intention on the part of the assailants to commit murder of Jagarnath. Therefore, the offence under Section 307/34 IPC of accused/Appellants Rustam, Ganesh and Bhisam is altered to Section 325/34 IPC. For inflicting simple injuries to Balkumari (PW11) and Ramkishun (PW14), conviction of accused/Appellants Rustam, Ganesh and Bhisam under Sections 323/34 and 452/34 IPC is affirmed. 29. Now, we shall examine the case of Appellant No.1, Rustam and Appellant No.2, Ganesh, who have claimed that at the time of incident they were juvenile. 30. Question of Appellants No.1 and 2 being juvenile was neither raised before the Committal Court nor before the Trial Court. It has been raised for the first time at this appellate stage. Both the Appellants have claimed that they were below 18 years of age on the date of incident, i.e., 26.8.1999. 30. Question of Appellants No.1 and 2 being juvenile was neither raised before the Committal Court nor before the Trial Court. It has been raised for the first time at this appellate stage. Both the Appellants have claimed that they were below 18 years of age on the date of incident, i.e., 26.8.1999. This Court, after hearing both the parties on I.A. No.1, by order dated 7.11.2016 had directed the Trial Court, i.e., the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (henceforth 'the Act of 2015') to hold an inquiry and record a finding regarding the age of Appellants No.1 and 2 on the date of incident, i.e., 26.8.1999. Under Section 9(2) of the Act of 2015 to determine their age on the date of incident, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur has conducted an inquiry and submitted a report dated 27.10.2017 stating that date of birth of Appellant No.1, Rustam is 19.11.1982 and on the date of incident he was aged about 16 years 9 months 7 days. Similarly, it is further stated in the said report that the date of birth of Appellant No.2, Ganesh is 3.3.1983 and on the date of incident he was aged about 16 years 5 months and 23 days. Thus, both the Appellants were juvenile on the date of incident. The said report is not opposed by the State Counsel. 31. In view of the above unassailed finding of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, on the date of incident, the age of Appellant No.1, Rustam was 16 years 9 months 7 days and the age of Appellant No.2, Ganesh was 16 years 5 months and 23 days. The parties have accepted the correctness of the age determined by the Court below. Thus, it is established that Appellants No.1 and 2 were juvenile on the date of incident. Therefore, their case has to be dealt with taking into consideration their juvenility. 32. In the judgment dated 30.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.805 of 1995 [Mohan alias Brij Mohan and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh)] by a Division Bench of this Court, it was observed thus: “15. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was subsequently repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 32. In the judgment dated 30.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.805 of 1995 [Mohan alias Brij Mohan and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh)] by a Division Bench of this Court, it was observed thus: “15. The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was subsequently repealed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. On 22.8.2006 Section 2(l) of the 2000 Act was amended stating that 'juvenile in conflict with law' means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date of commission of such offence. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 were brought into force on 26.10.2007. As per Rule 97(2) all the cases pending which have not received a finality has to be dealt with and disposed of in terms of the provisions of the 2000 Act as amended on 22.8.2006 and the 2007 Rules. According to the above Rules, therefore, Hari Shankar (A-2) would be entitled to benefit under the provisions of the 2000 Act. In such situation, appellant No.2 (A-2) ought to have been tried by the Competent Board, and not by a Regular Court, in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 2000. 16. Section 15 of the Act provides about the order that may be passed regarding a juvenile. U/s 15(1)(g), it has been provided that the Board may make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years. Under the proviso, the board has power, for the reasons to be recorded, to reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit. 17. Section 16(1) of the Act 2000 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment for any term which may extend to imprisonment for life, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security. According to the proviso, where a juvenile who has attained the age of sixteen years has committed an offence and the Board is satisfied that the offence committed is so serious in nature or that his conduct and behaviour have been such that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of the other measures provided under this Act is suitable or sufficient, the Board may order the juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the State Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 further provides that on receipt of a report from a Board under sub-section (1), the State Government may make such arrangement in respect of the juvenile as it deems proper and may order such juvenile to be kept under protective custody at such place and on such conditions as it thinks fit. Provided that the period of detention so ordered shall not exceed in any case the maximum period provided under section 15 of this Act. 18. Section 19 of the Act 2000 provides for removal of disqualification attaching to conviction. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. 19. Therefore, it is clear that in no case a juvenile on holding him guilty for an offence can be sent for more than the period prescribed u/s 15 of the Act and the case of Hari Shankar (A-2) has to be dealt with in the above manner.” 33. In (2015) 15 SCC 637 (Abdul Razzaq v. State of Uttar Pradesh), it has been observed by the Supreme Court thus: “11. In Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211 , it was observed: (SCC pp. 225-27, paras 49-59) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 59. In (2015) 15 SCC 637 (Abdul Razzaq v. State of Uttar Pradesh), it has been observed by the Supreme Court thus: “11. In Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211 , it was observed: (SCC pp. 225-27, paras 49-59) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 59. The law as now crystallised on a conjoint reading of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A, 20 and 49 read with Rules 12 and 98, places beyond all doubt that all persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-2001, would be treated as juveniles, even if the claim of juvenility was raised after they had attained the age of 18 years on or before the date of commencement of the Act and were undergoing sentence upon being convicted.” 34. Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides as under: “18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law.–(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a child irrespective of age has committed a petty offence, or a serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years has committed a heinous offence, then, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, the Board may, if it so thinks fit, – xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development, counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in the special home: Provided that if the conduct and behaviour of the child has been such that, it would not be in the child's interest, or in the interest of other children housed in a special home, the Board may send such child to the place of safety.” From the above, it is clear that in no case, a juvenile, on holding him guilty for an offence, can be sent for more than a period prescribed under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, that is, not exceeding three years. 35. 35. In the premises of aforestated, in the instant case, the conviction and sentence imposed upon Appellant No.1, Rustam and Appellant No.2, Ganesh by the impugned judgment are set aside and instead thereof both of them are convicted and sentenced as follows: Conviction Sentence Under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, they shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months Under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months Under Section 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months Under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year All the sentences to run concurrently. Since Appellants No.1 and 2 have already undergone a period of about 7 years, they are now not required to be sent back to jail. The conviction and sentence imposed upon Appellant No.4, Bhisam by the impugned judgment are also set aside and instead thereof he is convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months Under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months Under Section 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month Under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year Appellant No.4 is directed to surrender or he shall be taken into custody forthwith for undergoing remaining part of his sentence. All the sentences imposed above shall run concurrently. The period already undergone shall be adjusted against the period of sentence imposed today. 36. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 37. It is reported that Appellant No.3, Samat is on bail. All the sentences imposed above shall run concurrently. The period already undergone shall be adjusted against the period of sentence imposed today. 36. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 37. It is reported that Appellant No.3, Samat is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.