Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 416 (KAR)

Anjalappa v. State of Karnataka

2019-02-14

B.VEERAPPA, P.G.M.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B. VEERAPPA, J. 1. The present criminal appeal is filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and order on sentence passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in S.C. No. 322/2012 dated 19.06.2013 thereby convicting the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for life. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 14.04.2012, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Mudhol Police Station, after receiving Medico Legal Case (MLC) report from the Basaveshwar Hospital, Kalaburagi to the effect that one Sri Sharanappa had died while he was undergoing treatment in the said hospital for the injuries sustained by him due to assault. At about 4.00 p.m. he had visited the said hospital and got confirmed the death of deceased Sharanappa, due to injuries sustained by him and recorded a complaint lodged by complainant Smt. Kashamma Damargidda, resident of Laxmi Nagar, Mudhol, who was present in the hospital. Complaint to the effect that her brothers deceased Sharanappa and accused No. 1 Anjalappa were residing separately, since six years. There was a dispute between them regarding trees grown on the bund situated in between their lands and accused No. 1 Anjalappa often used to tell that he will commit murder of deceased Sharanappa. 3. On 14.04.2012, at about 10.00 a.m., when she was in her house, somebody came to her house and told her that her brother Sharanappa had sustained grievous injuries and he had been taken to Mudhol Government Hospital, for treatment. Later, she went to Government Hospital, Mudhool. Her brother Sharanappa was sleeping in the ambulance parked in the premises of the hospital, he had sustained bleeding injuries on his head and his both hands and legs. On enquiry, injured Sharanappa told her that at about 9.00 a.m. when he was cutting trees grown on the bund of his land, accused No. 1 Anjalappa and his son accused No. 2 Ashok, came to the land and took quarrel with him and with intent to commit his murder, had assaulted him with axes and due to which, he has sustained injuries. One Smt. Balamma, who was cultivating the land of her brother Sharanappa, was also present in the ambulance and she has also stated the same facts, which injured Sharanappa had stated before her. One Smt. Balamma, who was cultivating the land of her brother Sharanappa, was also present in the ambulance and she has also stated the same facts, which injured Sharanappa had stated before her. After giving first-aid treatment to injured Sharanappa, he was taken to Basaveshwar Hospital, Kalaburagi in ambulance for further treatment. While undergoing treatment in the Basaveshwar Hospital, her brother Sharanappa had died on the same day at 2.30 p.m. 4. On the basis of the complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No. 37/2012 against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 19.06.2013 in S.C. No. 322/2012 convicted both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the above said offence and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 5. During the pendency of the present appeal, I.A. No. 1/2018 came to be filed for suspension of sentence and bail. The second appellant/accused No. 2 raised an issue regarding the age of appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 and contended that as on the date of the alleged incident took place on 14.04.2012, his date of birth is 28.12.1995 as per the certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Mudhol, Sedam Taluk and as on the date of the alleged incident the appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 was 16 years 04 months 17 days old and claiming protection under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. On the basis of the said issue raised by the second appellant, this Court by an order dated 13.12.2018 the second appellant was referred to District Surgeon, Kalaburagi for determination of the age. After examination, the District Surgeon submitted a report and issued the Age Estimation Certificate dated 24.12.2018 and opined that the age of the appellant No. 2 is above 21 years as on the date of the examination 6. After examination, the District Surgeon submitted a report and issued the Age Estimation Certificate dated 24.12.2018 and opined that the age of the appellant No. 2 is above 21 years as on the date of the examination 6. This Court again by an order 06.02.2019 being not satisfied with the certificate issued by the District Surgeon, alone having regard to the provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the provisions of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, opined that the appellant No. 2 has to be examined by the Medical Board duly constituted by the District Surgeon, District Hospital, Kalaburagi, as contemplated under Rule 12(3)(b) of the Rules. Accordingly, the District Surgeon, District Hospital, Kalaburagi was directed to constitute a Medical Board consisting of specialists in the field to examine the appellant No. 2 as to physical, dental, radiological examinations, x-ray examination of skull (AP and lateral view), sternum (AP and lateral view) and sacrum (lateral view) and to determine the age of appellant No. 2 as on the date of the examination and his age as on the date of occurrence of the incident in the case i.e., on 14.04.2012 and submit a medical examination opinion/report along with all reports of specialist/experts. Accordingly, the District Surgeon submitted a report in a sealed cover, the same is opened in the open Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Sri Ashok B. Mulage, learned counsel for the appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 contended that the accused No. 2 was minor as on the date of the incident that occurred on 14.04.2012 and he was 16 years 04 months 17 days as per the date of birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Mudhol, Sedam Taluk and his date of birth is 28.12.1995. He would further contend that in pursuance of the order dated 28.10.2017 made in Crl. Misc. He would further contend that in pursuance of the order dated 28.10.2017 made in Crl. Misc. No. 457/2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sedam allowing the petition filed by the mother of appellant No. 2 and directed the respondent - Tahasildar, Sedam, Registrar of Birth and Death, to enter the date of birth of petitioner's son i.e., appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 by name Ashok S/o. Anjalappa was born on 28.12.1995 at village Mudhol, Tq. Sedam in the concerned register of birth and death and issue birth certificate to the petitioner after obtaining necessary fees in accordance with law. 9. He would further contend that the order passed by the JMFC Court, Sedam dated 28.10.2017 and subsequent birth certificate issued by the jurisdictional authority has reached finality. Therefore he submits that the appellant No. 2 is entitled to be released in view of the provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Therefore, he sought to allow the criminal appeal insofar as appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 is concerned. 10. Per contra, Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor sought to justify the conviction order passed by the trial Court and contended that it was not raised at the inception now it is not open for the appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 to raise an issue after conviction order is passed by the trial Court. 11. He further contend that taking advantage of the amended provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, the appellant No. 2 is misusing the said provisions and the same cannot be accepted at the belated stage. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the application for release of appellant No. 2/accused No. 2. 12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arise in the present appeal is;- "Whether the appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 has made-out any case to suspend the sentence and to release him under the provisions of Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000?" 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 14. It is undisputed fact that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the sister of the deceased and accused No. 1, the jurisdictional police registered a Crime No. 37/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused Nos. 1 and 2. After full-fledged trial the trial court convicted both the accused for the offence stated supra. 15. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the present appeal, application I.A. No. 1/2018 filed for suspension of sentence and bail by the appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 and raised a plea of juvenility and claimed protection under the provision of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on the ground that he was a minor as on the date of incident which took place on 14.04.2012. 16. In support of such plea, appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 relied on the order passed by the JMFC Court, Sedam in the Crl. Misc. No. 457/2017 dated 28.10.2017 filed by his mother Mahadevamma. The Tahasildar, Sedam, Registrar of Birth and Death, who was the respondent in the said case. The learned Magistrate considering both oral and documentary evidence on record by an order dated 28.10.2017 passed the order, which reads as under:- "The petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. The respondent is hereby directed to enter the date of birth of petitioner son by name Ashok S/o. Anjalappa was born on 28.12.1995 at village Mudhol, Tq: Sedam in the concerned register of birth and deaths and issue birth certificate to the petitioner after obtaining necessary fee in accordance with law." 17. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate has reached its finality. Based on the order of the learned Magistrate the jurisdictional Registrar of Births and Deaths issued the birth certificate dated 13.11.2017. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate has reached its finality. Based on the order of the learned Magistrate the jurisdictional Registrar of Births and Deaths issued the birth certificate dated 13.11.2017. The date of birth of appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 is 28.12.1995, which reads as under:- Government of India GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths BIRTH CERTIFICATE (Issued Under Section 12/17 of the RBD Act, 1969 and Rule 8/13 of the KRBD Rules, 1999) This is to Certify that the following information has been taken from the original record of birth, which is the register for Mudhol (village/town) of Sedam taluk of Kalaburagi district of Karnataka State (1) Name - Ashok Sex - Male Date of birth - 28/12/1995 Place of Birth - 6/62, Mudhol, Mudhol, Mudhole, Sedam, Kalaburagi, Karnataka 585 318 Name of Mother - Mahadevamma Name of Father - Anjalappa 6/62, Mudhol Karnataka 585 318 Address of parents at the time of birth of the child : 6/62, Mudhol, mudhol, Mudhole, Sedam Kalaburagi, Karnataka 585 318. Registration No: 620561/V/B/2017/0 00016 6/62, Mudhol Karnataka 585 318 Permanent address of parents : 6/62, Mudhol, mudhol, Mudhole, Sedam Kalaburagi, Karnataka 585 318. Date of Registration - 13/11/2017 Remarks (if any) Date of issue - 13/11/2017 Signature of Issuing Authority Address of the issuing authority Village Accountant Mudhol Circle, Sedam Taluk, Kalaburagi District Seal 18. This court taking into consideration the plea raised and in view of the provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the provisions of Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007, by an order dated 13.12.2018 directed the District Surgeon, Kalaburagi to examine the appellant No. 2 and submit a report. Accordingly, the District Surgeon has issued the Age Estimation Certificate dated 24.12.2018 and submitted a report by opining that the age of the appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 is above Twenty one (21) years as on 22.12.2018. The certificate issued by the Casualty Medical Officer, District Hospital, Kalaburagi reads as under:- Office of the District Surgeon and Superintendent District Hospital, Kalaburagi No.MLC/MRD/GIMS/AGE/1416/2018 Dated 24.12.2018 AGE ESTIMATION CERTIFICATE Ref :- xxx -1/2018-19 xxx 22/12/2018. ***** This is to Certify that 19428 Ashok S/o Anjalappa was brought GIMS hospital Kalaburagi with above reference letter on 22/12/2018 through Nazir khan HC Central Jail, Kalaburagi. ***** This is to Certify that 19428 Ashok S/o Anjalappa was brought GIMS hospital Kalaburagi with above reference letter on 22/12/2018 through Nazir khan HC Central Jail, Kalaburagi. 19428 Ashok S/o Anjalappa is examined Under UHID No.20180303839 on 22/12/2018 and as per the Dental Surgeon, Radiologist Opinion his age estimation as follows:- 1. As per Dental Surgeon Opinion :- Dental age is above eighteen (18) years. 2. As per Radiologist Opinion :- Age estimated skeletal age is above Twenty one (21) years X-ray No.2035 dated 22/12/2018. Opinion :- I am of the Opinion that his age is above Twenty one (21) years. Sd/- (Dr.Neelavati Tambre) Casualty Medical Officer Dist. Hospital Kalaburagi 19. Not being satisfied with the said certificate, this court again on 06.02.2019 directed the District Surgeon, District Hospital, Kalaburagi to constitute a Medical Board consisting of Specialists in the field to examine the appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 for physical, dental, radiological examinations etc. and to determine his age as on the date of occurrence of the incident i.e., 14.04.1995 and as on the date of examination and submit a report along with all the reports of specialists/experts before this court. Accordingly, the Chairman, Medical Board, District Surgeon GIMS Hospital, Kalaburagi produced the Medical Board Age Estimation Certificate dated 12.02.2019 along with the reports by the specialists. The certificate issued by the Medical Board which reads as under:- Office of the District Surgeon and Superintendent District Hospital, Kalaburagi No.GIMS/MB/AGE/20/2019 Dated 12.02.2018 MEDICAL BOARD AGE ESTIMATION CERTIFICATE Ref :- 1. Hon’ble Judge High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench dated 08.02.2019. ***** This is to Certify that Prisoner No.19428 19428 Ashok S/o Anjalappa was brought GIMS hospital Kalaburagi with above reference letter on 11/02/2019 through Ramu Rathod Head Warder, Central Jail, Kalaburagi. Prisoner No.19428 Ashok S/o Anjalappa is examined Under UHID No.20190036487 on 11/02/2019 and as per the Dental Surgeon, Radiologist Physician and Forensic Expert Opinion his age estimation as follows :- 1. As per Dental Surgeon Opinion : Dental age is above eighteen (18) years. 2. As per Radiologist Opinion : Estimated skeletal age as per radiological finding is between 18 to 21 years X-ray No.3444 dated 11.02.2019. 3. Physician Opinion : Radiological age is above 18 years. 4. Forensic Expert Opinion : Taking into account Physical, Dental and Radiological examination the age of the person appears to be about twenty one to twenty five (21 to 25) years. 3. Physician Opinion : Radiological age is above 18 years. 4. Forensic Expert Opinion : Taking into account Physical, Dental and Radiological examination the age of the person appears to be about twenty one to twenty five (21 to 25) years. Opinion :- Medial board opinion is that the above person’s age is about Twenty one to Twenty five (21 to 25) years. Sd/- Radiologist Member Sd/- Dentist Member Sd/- Forensic Expert Member Sd/- Physician Member Dr.Ramoji Mane Professor & Head Department of Radiology Gulbarga Institute of Medical Sciences Kalaburagi Dr.Ashok Assistant Professor Department of Dentistry Gulbarga Institute of Medical Sciences Kalaburagi Dr.Girish.H.S. MBBS, MDFM, KMC No.7242 Specialist District Hospital, Kalaburagi Dr.Jagadishchandra Benur KMC Reg.No.26941, M.D.Gen.Medicine Physician Dist. Hospital Kalaburagi Sd/- Chairman Medical Board and Dist. Surgeon & Superintendent Dist. Hospital, Kalaburagi 20. Considering the order passed by the learned Magistrate, date of birth certificate issued by the Competent Authority, the earlier certificate issued by the District Surgeon and the Medical Board Age Estimation Certificate issued by the Chairman Medical Board, Kalaburagi clearly depicts that the appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 is aged about 21 to 25 years as on 11.02.2019. If we consider the age of the appellant No. 2 as on the date of the incident on 14.04.2012 his age would be less than 18 years. 21. To consider whether the appellant No. 2/accused No. 2 was juvenile as on the date of the incident that occurred on 14.4.2012, it is profitable to rely the definition of Section 2(k), (l) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000, which reads as under:- "2(k) - "Juvenile" or "Child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age. [(l) - "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;]" 22. The medical certificate issued by the District Surgeon and the Medical Board, during the course of their official duty presumption has to be drawn under the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The genuineness of said certificates has not been disputed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 23. The medical certificate issued by the District Surgeon and the Medical Board, during the course of their official duty presumption has to be drawn under the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The genuineness of said certificates has not been disputed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 23. It is profitable to consider the provisions of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the 'Act') inserted by Act 33 of 2006 w.e.f. 22.08.2006. The provisions of Section 7A reads as under: "7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any Court.- 1. Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided 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 this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. 2. 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." 24. 2. 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." 24. A careful reading of the said provisions makes it clear that, whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: 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 this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. Ultimately 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 order, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect. 25. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the legislature thought fit to enact the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 procedure to be followed in determination of age, which reads as under: 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. (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. 26. In the present case, in the absence of the documents as contained in Section 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), this Court had no option but to constitute medical board in terms of 12(3)(b) of the Rules. In spite of the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the jurisdictional Tahsildar to enter the date of birth of accused-appellant No. 2 in the concerned register of Births and Deaths as 28.12.1995 and subsequently, the certificate issued by the competent authorities to that effect, still this Court felt to appoint medical board, in view of specific objections raised by the Additional SPP on the grounds that the accused is misusing the provisions of Section 7A of the Act. Therefore, we directed the District Surgeon to constitute medical board or any competent authority to issue such certificate and take all endeavour and should not permit the accused to misuse the provisions of Section 7A of the Act and subject the accused-appellant No. 2 to examination for determination of his age. 27. Therefore, we directed the District Surgeon to constitute medical board or any competent authority to issue such certificate and take all endeavour and should not permit the accused to misuse the provisions of Section 7A of the Act and subject the accused-appellant No. 2 to examination for determination of his age. 27. In view of the aforesaid exercise of events, namely, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths or competent authorities, age estimation certificate issued by the District Surgeon and certificate issued by the medical board clearly depicts that accused-appellant No. 2 falls within the definition of "juvenile" under Section 2(k) of the Act, 2000 and he is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 7A and Section 15 of the Act. 28. In case of a minor/juvenile involved in the offence, the maximum punishment period of three years is provided under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant is in custody from 15.04.2012 till today and has undergone 6 years 9 months of sentence, which is more than maximum period of three years as prescribed in Section 15 of the Act and therefore, he is entitled to be released from custody in view of the provisions as stated supra. 29. Our view is fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narain vs. State of U.P. reported in 2015 (2) Criminal SCC 350 at para-4 and 5 held as under: 4. In the case of Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2015 (5) SCALE 634 , wherein the appeal of the accused was allowed granting him the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, this Court observed: "The learned counsel for the appellant raises the plea of juvenility under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. The plea can be raised before any Court and at any point of time. We feel that the stand taken by the counsel is correct and we will look into the present lis keeping in mind the juvenility of the accused appellant at the time of commission of the crime. As stated earlier, the age of the accused appellant was less than 18 years at the time of the incident. We feel that the stand taken by the counsel is correct and we will look into the present lis keeping in mind the juvenility of the accused appellant at the time of commission of the crime. As stated earlier, the age of the accused appellant was less than 18 years at the time of the incident. It has been brought to our notice that the appellant has undergone about 8 years in jail. The appellant falls within the definition of "juvenile" under Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000. He can raise the plea of juvenility at any time and before any court as per the mandate of Section 7(a) and has rightly done so. It has been proved before us, as per the procedure given in the Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2007, and the age of the accused appellant has been determined following the correct procedure and there is no doubt regarding it. On the question of sentencing, we believe that the accused appellant is to be released. In the present matter, in addition to the fact that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence, the accused appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law. Assuming without conceding, that even if the conviction is upheld, Upendra Pradhan has undergone almost 8 years of sentence, which is more than the maximum period of three years prescribed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000. Thus, giving him the benefit under the Act, we strike down the decision of the High Court. This Court has time and again held in a plethora of judgments on the benefit of the Act of 2000 and on the question of sentencing." We have also noticed that in Ajay Kumar v. State of M.P., (2010) 15 SCC 83, this Court observed as follows: "In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the maximum period for which a juvenile could be kept in a special home is for three years. In the instant case, we are informed that the appellant who is proved to be a juvenile has undergone detention for a period of about approximately 14 years. In the instant case, we are informed that the appellant who is proved to be a juvenile has undergone detention for a period of about approximately 14 years. In that view of the matter, since the appellant herein was a minor on the date of commission of the offence and has already undergone more than the maximum period of detention as provided for under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, by following the provisions of Rule 98 of Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 read with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, we allow the appeal with a direction that the appellant be released forthwith." (Emphasis Supplied) The same view was followed in Hakim v. State, (2014) 13 SCC 427 , and Lakhan Lal v. State of Bihar, (2011) 2 SCC 251 . 5. Hence, we think that the petitioner-applicant should get the benefit under the said Act since he was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court as also the High Court are set aside. The petitioner-applicant is directed to be released forthwith. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the very provisions of Section 7A of the Act and Rule 12 of the Rules in the case of Abdul Razzaq vs. State of U.P. reported in 2015 (1) Criminal SCC 579 at para 9 and 10 held as under: 9. The legal position on the subject is well settled. A person below 18 years at the time of the incident can claim benefit of the Act any time. The legal position on the subject is well settled. A person below 18 years at the time of the incident can claim benefit of the Act any time. Reference may be made to Section 7-A and 20 of the Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 which are as follows: "Section 7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.-- (1) Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the 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 a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: Provided 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 this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) 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 order, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect." "Section 20. (2) 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 order, and the sentence if any, passed by a court shall be deemed to have no effect." "Section 20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence: Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile. Explanation.-- 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 (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be 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." "Rule 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. (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 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 7-A, 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." 10. The above provisions clearly show that even if a person was not entitled to the benefit of juvenilities under the 1986 Act or the present Act prior to its amendment in 2006, such benefit is available to a person undergoing sentence if he was below 18 on the date of the occurrence. Such relief can be claimed even if a matter has been finally decided, as in the present case. 31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mali and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 669 at para 8 to 14 held as under: 8. What is of relevance is the fact that Section 7-A of the 2000 Act allows a claim of juvenility to be raised before any Court at any stage even after final disposal of the case and speaks of the procedure which the Court is required to adopt when such claim of juvenility is raised. 9. Section 20 of the 2000 Act specially provides for the procedure to be followed in pending cases and reads as follows:- "20. 9. Section 20 of the 2000 Act specially provides for the procedure to be followed in pending cases and reads as follows:- "20. Special provision in respect of pending cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence. [Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile. Explanation.- 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 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." What is to be noticed in the aforesaid Section is that it makes provision for continuance of trials which had been commenced prior to the coming into operation of the 2000 Act. While providing that the trial could continue 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 in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board, which could then pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of the 2000 Act. 10. 10. Section 64 of the 2000 Act deals with a situation where a juvenile in conflict with law is already undergoing sentence at the commencement of the Act, and the same reads as follows:- "64. Juvenile in conflict with law undergoing sentence at commencement of this Act.-In any area in which this Act is brought into force, the State Government shall direct that a juvenile in conflict with law who is undergoing any sentence of imprisonment at the commencement of this Act, shall, in lieu of undergoing such sentence, be sent to a special home or be kept in fit institution in such manner as the State Government thinks fit for the remainder of the period of the sentence; and the provisions of this Act shall apply to the juvenile as if he had been ordered by the Board to be sent to such special home or institution or, as the case may be, ordered to be kept under protective care under sub-section (2) of section 16 of this Act." 11. The said provision has to be read along with Sections 7A and 20 of the 2000 Act, together with Rule 98 of the 2007 Rules, which deals with disposed of cases of juveniles in conflict with law, and provides as follows: "98. Disposed of cases of juveniles in conflict with law. - The State Government or as the case may be the Board may, either suo motu or on an application made for the purpose, review the case of a person or a juvenile in conflict with law, determine his juvenility in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and Rule 12 of these rules and pass an appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law under Section 64 of the Act, for the immediate release of the juvenile in conflict with law whose period of detention or imprisonment has exceeded the maximum period provided in Section 15 of the said Act." 12. In the facts of this case, we are faced with a situation where the juvenile, Dhanna Lal, had already been tried along with adults and had been convicted under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment, out of which he has already undergone about 9 years of the sentence. In the facts of this case, we are faced with a situation where the juvenile, Dhanna Lal, had already been tried along with adults and had been convicted under Sections 302/34, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment, out of which he has already undergone about 9 years of the sentence. Rule 98 of the 2007 Rules, in our view, squarely applies to Appellant No. 2 Dhanna Lal's case. His case is to be considered not only for grant of bail, but also for release in terms of the said Rule, since he has completed more than the maximum period of sentence as provided under Section 15 of the 2000 Act. 13. The legal position has been clearly explained in Hari Ram's case (supra) and does not, therefore, require any further elucidation in this case. 14. Having regard to the fact that the Appellant No. 2, Dhanna Lal, was a minor on the date of commission of the offence, and has already undergone more than the maximum sentence provided under Section 15 of the 2000 Act, by applying the provisions of Rule 98 of the 2007 Rules read with Sections 15 and 64 of the 2000 Act, we allow the appeal as far as he is concerned and direct that he be released forthwith. The bail application filed on his behalf is also disposed of, accordingly. 32. The latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukarrab and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2017) 2 SCC 210 at para 10 to 14 and 15 as under: 10. Age determination is essential to find out whether or not the person claiming to be a child is below the cut-off age prescribed for application of the Juvenile Justice Act. The issue of age determination is of utmost importance as very few children subjected to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act have a birth certificate. As juvenile in conflict with law usually do not have any documentary evidence, age determination, cannot be easily ascertained, specially in borderline cases. Medical examination leaves a margin of about two years on either side even if ossification test of multiple joints is conducted. 11. Time and again, the questions arise: How to determine age in the absence of birth certificate? Should documentary evidence be preferred over medical evidence? How to use the medical evidence? Medical examination leaves a margin of about two years on either side even if ossification test of multiple joints is conducted. 11. Time and again, the questions arise: How to determine age in the absence of birth certificate? Should documentary evidence be preferred over medical evidence? How to use the medical evidence? Is the standard of proof, a proof beyond reasonable doubt or can the age be determined by preponderance of evidence? Should the person whose age cannot be determined exactly, be given the benefit of doubt and be treated as a child? In the absence of a birth certificate issued soon after birth by the concerned authority, determination of age becomes a very difficult task providing a lot of discretion to the Judges to pick and choose evidence. In different cases, different evidence has been used to determine the age of the accused. 12. This Court in Arnit Das v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488 , clarified that the review of judicial opinion shows that the Court should not take a hyper-technical approach while appreciating evidence for determination of age of the accused. If two views are possible, the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This approach was further reiterated by this Court in Rajindra Chandra v. State of Chhatisgarh and Another (2002) 2 SCC 287 , in which it laid down that the standard of proof for age determination is the degree of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. 13. It is noteworthy that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 does not lay down any fixed criteria for determining the age of the person. Section 49(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides for presumption and determination of age as under:- "49. 13. It is noteworthy that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 does not lay down any fixed criteria for determining the age of the person. Section 49(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides for presumption and determination of age as under:- "49. Presumption and determination of age.-- (1) Where it appears to a competent authority that person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (otherwise than for the purpose of giving evidence) is a juvenile or the child, the competent authority shall make due inquiry so as to the age of that person and for that purpose shall take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or the child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be." From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that it provides that when it appears to the competent authority namely, the Board that the person brought before it is a juvenile, the Board is obliged to make it clear as to the age of that person and for that purpose the Board shall take such evidence as may be necessary and then record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be. 14. Under Rule 12, the Board is enjoined to take evidence for determination of age. Rule 12 is as under:- "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 off 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." 15. Summarizing the legal position as to the claim of juvenility and observing that such plea can be raised at any stage and after referring to various decisions, three-Judges Bench of this Court in Abuzar Hossain alias Gulam Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 SCC 489 held as under:- "39. Now, we summarise the position which is as under: 39.1. A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage even after the final disposal of the case. It may be raised for the first time before this Court as well after the final disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in the appeal court. 39.2. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. The claim of juvenility can be raised in appeal even if not pressed before the trial court and can be raised for the first time before this Court though not pressed before the trial court and in the appeal court. 39.2. For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which may prima facie satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility. 39.3. As to what materials would prima facie satisfy the court and/or are sufficient for discharging the initial burden cannot be catalogued nor can it be laid down as to what weight should be given to a specific piece of evidence which may be sufficient to raise presumption of juvenility but the documents referred to in Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii) shall definitely be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the court about the age of the delinquent necessitating further enquiry under Rule 12. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code is too tentative and may not by itself be sufficient ordinarily to justify or reject the claim of juvenility. The credibility and/or acceptability of the documents like the school leaving certificate or the voters' list, etc. obtained after conviction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule can be prescribed that they must be prima facie accepted or rejected. In Akbar Sheikh (2009) 7 SCC 415 and Pawan (2009) 15 SCC 259 these documents were not found prima facie credible while in Jitendra Singh (2010) 13 SCC 523 the documents viz. school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant's age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent. 39.4. school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant's age. If such documents prima facie inspire confidence of the court, the court may act upon such documents for the purposes of Section 7-A and order an enquiry for determination of the age of the delinquent. 39.4. An affidavit of the claimant or any of the parents or a sibling or a relative in support of the claim of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal or revision or before this Court during the pendency of the matter or after disposal of the case shall not be sufficient justifying an enquiry to determine the age of such person unless the circumstances of the case are so glaring that satisfy the judicial conscience of the court to order an enquiry into determination of the age of the delinquent. 39.5. The court where the plea of juvenility is raised for the first time should always be guided by the objectives of the 2000 Act and be alive to the position that the beneficent and salutary provisions contained in the 2000 Act are not defeated by the hypertechnical approach and the persons who are entitled to get benefits of the 2000 Act get such benefits. The courts should not be unnecessarily influenced by any general impression that in schools the parents/guardians understate the age of their wards by one or two years for future benefits or that age determination by medical examination is not very precise. The matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 39.6. Claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the court at the threshold whenever raised." 33. For the reasons stated above, the point raised above in the present appeal is answered in the affirmative holding that accused-appellant No. 2 is entitled to get benefit under the provisions of Section 7A read with Section 15 of the Act since he was juvenile as on the date of commission of offence. 34. Admittedly, the appellant-accused No. 2 is in the custody for more than 6 years 9 months more than prescribed punishment as provided under Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, he is entitled to benefit under the Act as stated supra. 35. 34. Admittedly, the appellant-accused No. 2 is in the custody for more than 6 years 9 months more than prescribed punishment as provided under Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, he is entitled to benefit under the Act as stated supra. 35. In view of the above, The appeal is allowed in part only insofar as accused/appellant No. 2-Ashok is concerned. The judgment and order passed by the I-Addl. Sessions Judge at Gulbarga in S.C. No. 322/2012 dated 19.06.2013 only insofar as accused/appellant No. 2-Ashok is set aside. Consequently, the appellant-accused No. 2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused/appellant No. 2-Ashok shall be released from custody forthwith. 36. Insofar as appeal against accused/appellant No. 1 is concerned, the matter has to be considered on its merits in accordance with law. 37. The copy of the order shall be sent to the jurisdictional Jail Superintendent forthwith to release accused/appellant No. 2 after following the procedure as contemplated. 38. Before parting with the present case taking into the contentions raised by the learned Addl. SPP with regard to the misuse of the provisions of Section 7A of the Act, it is relevant to observe at this stage that, it is no doubt true that if there is a clear and unambiguous case in favour of the juvenile accused that he was a minor below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident and the documentary evidence at least prima facie proves the same, he would be entitled to the special protection under the Juvenile Justice Act. But when an accused commits a grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of protecting the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice. when such plea raised by such accused, the authorities who determine the age either by the Registrar of Births and Deaths or learned Magistrate or Medical Board who pass orders for determination of age should be very careful and should not allow such accused persons to misuse of the provisions of Section 7A of the Act to get benefit under the provisions of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act and it is also to be borne in mind by the Medical Board and other authorities concerned who determine the age of such accused that there should not be wide variation in the age when they raise such plea first time either before the trial Court or before the appellate Court as permitted a due diligence has to be applied and take all endeavour that the persons who make attempt to take shelter under the guise of being minor should not be allowed easily. 39. The efforts made by the learned counsel for the appellant No. 2 and learned Addl. SPP to appraise the Court is appreciated and placed on record.