JUDGMENT : RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1983 in St. No. 438 of 1982 State Vs. Dodraj and others, whereby the accused appellants Shree Ram, Ram Bahadur were convicted for charge under Section 302/149 IPC and Section 148 IPC, for which they were sentenced to imprisonment for life and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively and the remaining five accused persons Dodraj, Ram Swaroop, Neksoo, Summeri alias Bhadain and Kallan alias Kalyan were convicted under Sections 147 and 302/149 IPC and each of them have been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for charge under Section 147 IPC and life imprisonment for charge under Section 302/149 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellants were enlarged on bail vide order dated 27.10.1983 passed in instant appeal during the pendency of appeal. Appellants Dodraj, Ram Swaroop, Neksoo, Summeri alias Bhadain, Shree Ram and Kallan alias Kalyan have died during the pendency of appeal and appeal has been dismissed for these deceased appellants as having abated by various orders passed by this Court in the present appeal. Thus the appeal at present survives in respect of appellant Ram Bahadur only, and it has been argued in respect of appellant Ram Bahadur by the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This fact is noticeable that appellant No. 2 Ram Bahadur, the sole surviving appellant moved an application before this Court with a prayer to consider his juvenality at the time of offence, as he was aged about 17 years at the time of incident. This Court heard learned counsel for the parties, on this application filed on behalf of appellant No. 2 Ram Bahadur, wherein he claimed juvenality, and on 16.02.2022 passed an order to the effect that the application filed by the applicant/appellant alongwith all the documents be forwarded to the concerned session judge, and, in turn, the concerned sessions judge shall conduct an appropriate inquiry for determining the age of the appellant No. 2. It is also directed in the said order the the concerned sessions judge, after conducting an appropriate inquiry in accordance with law, shall send his report before this Court. 4. It is also directed in the said order the the concerned sessions judge, after conducting an appropriate inquiry in accordance with law, shall send his report before this Court. 4. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 16.02.2022 a report dated 28.09.2022 alongwith lower court record has been received from District and Sessions Judge, Budaun, wherein it is stated that at the time of incident appellant Ram Bahadur was juvenile. There is nothing on record which could manifest that any appeal or revision was filed on behalf of State or defacto complainant. Interms this finding of juvenality recorded by learned Sessions Judge, the appellant would be treated as juvenile for the purposes of present criminal appeal. 5. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned AGA for the State. 6. The factual matrix of prosecution case in nutshell are that informant Ramavtar lodged an FIR by filing written report bearing dated 05.07.1982 at P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun, wherein he stated that there was enmity between his family members and accused Dodraj. A dacoity had taken place at the house of accused Dodraj, and for that dacoity deceased Ram Prakash who was brother of the informant was named an accused and he was challaned, his brother Ram Prakash acquitted of said charge of dacoity by court of session on 28.06.1982. On 05.07.1982 the deceased Ram Prakash, his brother Ramavtar PW2, and his father Brij Lal PW3 were going to Ujhani town to get wheat grinded and to purchase other articles for the Katha (a religious ceremony) by a bullock cart. At about 07:30 am they reached near railway line crossing which was very close to their village, the accused Dodraj, Ram Swaroop, Neksoo, Summeri alias Bhadain, Ram Bahadur and Kallan alias Kalyan, met them on way who has come from other side and were armed with lathis and kanta. They stated that they abused Ram Prakash and they would kill him on that day. Ram Prakash ran towards fields to save him, but the accused persons chased him and attacked him in the field of Preetam by lathi and kanta (an incised weapon). The informant and his father raised alarm, whereupon passersby Ramphal, Anekpal, Munshi and Netram reached and cried what they were doing. The informant and his father moved forward to save Ram Prakash. The accused persons assaulted him and his father by lathi. The informant and his father raised alarm, whereupon passersby Ramphal, Anekpal, Munshi and Netram reached and cried what they were doing. The informant and his father moved forward to save Ram Prakash. The accused persons assaulted him and his father by lathi. The injured Ram Prakash fell down in the field and when the witnesses challenged the accused persons then they escaped towards railway-line. The occurrence was witnessed by the informant, his father and other witnesses. The informant and witnesses laid the injured in a tanga (horse cart) and took him at police station. The FIR was lodged under Section 147 IPC at P.S. concerned vide Crime No. 289 of 1982, on same day i.e. 05.07.1982 at 11:30 am, in which all the seven accused are named. 7. The written report Ext. Ka-1 was scribed by Smt. Gayatri Devi and filed by the informant at police station under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC. 8. Injured Ram Prakash died on account of worsening condition of Ram Prakash who had been brought to District Hospital Budaun where he died. A death information was sent to police station Ujhanai and the case converted from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC, on the basis of death information memo received from district hospital. The inquest on body of the deceased was conducted on 05.07.1982 at 13:10 hours. 9. S.I. Sri V.S. Yadav of Police Station Kotwali Budaun was deputed to hold inquest on the dead body. He went to the district hospital Budaun and held an inquest on the dead body on 05.07.1982 at about noon time, in presence of the witnesses. He prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-7, Naksha Nash Ext. Ka-8, Chalan Nash Ext. Ka-9, letter to R.I. Ext. Ka-10, letter to C.M.O. Ext. Ka-11 and another letter requesting for postmortem examination on dead body of Ram Prakash. S.I. Sri V.S. Yadav also prepared sample seal and send the dead body for postmortem examination in sealed cover. For postmortem examination two constables Ramesh Chandra and Raghuveer Sahai of Police Station Kotwali, they were instructed to take the dead body to mortuary for postmortem examination. 10. Postmortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. S.R. Gupta, PW5 on 05.07.1982 at 04:55 pm. The Medical Officer found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body: 1. For postmortem examination two constables Ramesh Chandra and Raghuveer Sahai of Police Station Kotwali, they were instructed to take the dead body to mortuary for postmortem examination. 10. Postmortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. S.R. Gupta, PW5 on 05.07.1982 at 04:55 pm. The Medical Officer found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body: 1. Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on right side of dead, 4 cm behind the right ear, placed vertically above down-ward. Margins clear-cut. 2. Incised wound 4 cm x 1.25 cm x bone deep one cut on the central post of head, 2 cm outer to injury No. 1. 3. Incised wound 6.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, part of scalp over head, muscle cut on left side of head. 6 cm lateral to injury No. 3. 4. Multiple contusions (abraded) 11 cm x 1 cm on the right side of neck, just below the mandible, 4 cm below the right ear standing up to back and frond. 5. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on the top of right shoulder. 6. Contusion multiple in an area of 19 cm x 4 cm on the ulnar border of left fore-arm, close to lateral aspect, 4 cm below the elbow. 7. Contusion 7 cm x 1.5 cm on the lateral border of lower third of left arm. 8. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on the lateral border of elbow. 9. Incised would 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the Palmer aspect. 10. Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the right calf. 11. Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on the border of right forearm lower part with fracture of radius. 11. Besides these injuries, on internal examination the Medical Officer found clotted blood present below injuries Nos. 1 and 2. Right side temporal, parietal and occipital bones were fractured. Brain and membranes were cut and clotted blood was present there. Both chambers of the heart were empty. Two onces digested unidentified food material was found in stomach. According to the medical officer, the death was caused due to shock and hamorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries at about 11:30 am vide police papers. Dr. S.R. Gupta also prepared the postmortem examination report Ext. Ka-3. 12. Investigation of this case was conducted by S.I. S.S. Sharma, PW7. Two onces digested unidentified food material was found in stomach. According to the medical officer, the death was caused due to shock and hamorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries at about 11:30 am vide police papers. Dr. S.R. Gupta also prepared the postmortem examination report Ext. Ka-3. 12. Investigation of this case was conducted by S.I. S.S. Sharma, PW7. The case was registered in his presence at police station Ujhani. He recorded the statement of H.M. Rameshwar Dayal, who had written the FIR and the complainant Ram Avtar at the police station. Then he proceeded to the place of occurrence where he recorded the statements of the witnesses Munshi Shah, Anekpal and others. He made a local inspection and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-5. From the place of occurrence he obtained blood stained and simple earth and prepared its memo Ext. Ka-6. He arrested the accused persons Neksoo, Summeri and Kallan on 20.07.1982 and the remaining accused persons surrendered thereafter in the court. The I.O. submitted charge-sheet against those accused persons on 18.07.1982, 20.07.1982. 13. The case of all the seven accused persons named above was committed to court for session by Sri M.K. Bansal, Judicial Magistrate-II Budaun vide order dated 14.09.1982 for trial for charge under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. The charges against the accused persons were framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27.01.1983. 14. The first charge against them recites that on or about 5th day of July, 1982 at about 07:30 am at the field of Pitambar near railway crossing of village Ulehtapur, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun, these accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit the murder of Ram Prakash and at that time the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons namely lathis and kanta and committed riot, and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. The second charge against them narrates that on the aforesaid date time and place in prosecution of the said common object of such unlawful assembly, the accused persons committed the murder of Ram Prakash having intentionally caused his death and thereby committed ana offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 149 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 15. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined Dr. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 15. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined Dr. M.L. Verma, P.W.1 who deposed about the injuries of Ram Autar and Brijlal, PW2 and 3. Prosecution also examined Ram Autar PW2, his father Brijlal PW3, Ramphal PW4, and Nek Ram PW6. They are the eye witnesses and deposed about the incident. Prosecution also examined Dr. S.R. Gupta PW5 who had held an autopsy on the dead body. He has deposed abut the ante-mortem injuries and internal injuries found on the dead body and proved the postmortem examination report. Then the prosecution examined SI S.S. Sharma PW7 who had conducted the investigation. He has deposed about the investigation and proved the papers connected with the dead body prepared by the SI V.S. Yadav of Police Station Kotwali. He has also proved the FIR prepared by constable Rameshwar Dayal of police station Ujhani. Prosecution also filed a judgment in S.T. No. 344/80 State Vs. Ram Prakash under Section 395/397 IPC and another judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 135/81 Ext.Kha-14 and Ka15. 16. In defence the accused persons examined Dr. Smt. P.K. Agarwal DW-1 Medical Officer Women’s Hospital, Budaun. She deposed that the life of the accused Kallan was admitted in the hospital at 10:30 am on 05.07.82 and she gave birth to a dead child at 03:30 pm. Defence also examined Jigar Shan DW2 a Tanga Driver. He has deposed that about 1 ¼ year ago before sun set, he had taken Kallan and his wife in his tanga to the hospital of Jagat and then to the Women’s Hospital at Budaun where he reached at about 09:00 am. The defence also filed a photo-stat copy of bed-head ticket Ext. Kha-1. Copy of judgment Ext. Kha-2, copy of charge sheet Ext. Kha-3, copy of statement of Ramphal in consolidation case Ext. Kha-4. Copy of bail order Ext. Kha-5. One voter list was was also filed which is not admissible in evidence because it is not a certified copy. 17. Learned trial court after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the accused persons and learned counsel for the State scrutinized the entire evidence placed by the prosecution in defence on record and also considered the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as defence evidence adduced by accused persons. 17. Learned trial court after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the accused persons and learned counsel for the State scrutinized the entire evidence placed by the prosecution in defence on record and also considered the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as defence evidence adduced by accused persons. Learned trial court observed that the FIR appears to be prompt, there is nothing in the prosecution evidence to show that FIR was ante-time. Moreover there is motive for assault. It is admitted fact that prior to this murder a dacoity had taken place at the house of Dodraj accused and in that dacoity deceased Ram Prakash was prosecuted and acquitted on 29.06.1982, vide copy of impugned judgment exhibited as Ext. Ka-14. 18. Besides this there were cross cases under Section 307 IPC between the parties. Ramavtar has also stated on oath that Dodhraj was prosecuted for possession of illicit opium and in that also the accused Ram Prakash had appeared as a witness against him. All these litigation would give sufficient motive to the accused persons to commit the murder of Ram Prakash. Under all these facts and circumstances, when the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is quite natural, independent and is in perfect harmony with the medical evidence and when it does not suffer from any material discrepancy, embellishment paddingup it must be believed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The minor contradictions and inconsistency do not effect the broad features of the prosecution story relating to the assault on the deceased. The accused persons deserves to be convicted. 19. With the above findings, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused persons as stated above. 20. Learned counsel appearing for surviving appellant Ram Bahadur submitted that motive has been attributed to appellant Dodraj (since deceased), and the present appellant has been implicated in the case only to the fact that he is the son of Dodraj. In fact, appellants were implicated in the case due to previous enmity between deceased and appellants. The injuries of witnesses Ramavtar and Brijlal are of superficial in nature and not very significant, which could have suggested definite presence of the injured witnesses on the spot. In fact, appellants were implicated in the case due to previous enmity between deceased and appellants. The injuries of witnesses Ramavtar and Brijlal are of superficial in nature and not very significant, which could have suggested definite presence of the injured witnesses on the spot. This fact has emerged in evidence that appellant Neksoo and Dodraj are real brothers, Ram Swaroop and Kallan are sons of Neksoo, Ram Bahadur and Shree Ram are sons of Dodraj and Summeri alias Bhadain is son of Bodhan who was real brother of Neksoo and Dodraj. Therefore, all the family members of Dodraj are implicated in the case due to enmity. 21. He further submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the defence evidence which includes DW1 Dr. P.K. Agarwal who deposed that wife of the accused Kallan was admitted in the hospital at 10:30 am on 05.07.1982, and she gave birth to a dead child at 03:30 pm. In this situation presence of appellant Kallan (since deceased) on the place of incident at 07:30 am was quite unnatural. Defence also examined DW2 Jigar Shah tanga driver who deposed that about 11/4 years ago before sunset he had taken Kallan and his wife in his tanga to the hospital of Jagat, and then to Women's Hospital at Budaun, where he reached at about 09:00 am. The defence also filed the photostat copy of Bed Head Ticket, Ext. Kha-1, copy of judgment Kha-2, copy of chargesheet Kha-3, copy of statement of Ramphal in consolidation case Ext. Kha-4 and copy of bail order Ext. Kha-5. The testimony of prosecution witnesses of fact is full of inconsistencies and contradictions and no weight can be attached thereon. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that no money was recovered from the dead body of Ram Prakash and therefore it should not be believed that the deceased Ram Prakash, his father and brother were going to Ujhani to purchase essential articles for Katha ceremony and to get wheat grinded. PW2 Ramphal was cited as a witness in a criminal complaint by a person against Dodraj, he is a partisan and interested witness and can be cited as a professional witness PW4. No specific role has been attributed to present appellant in the offence, and he has been convicted and sentenced with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 23. PW2 Ramphal was cited as a witness in a criminal complaint by a person against Dodraj, he is a partisan and interested witness and can be cited as a professional witness PW4. No specific role has been attributed to present appellant in the offence, and he has been convicted and sentenced with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 23. Learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and committed error of fact and law by convicting the surviving appellant with four accused persons. He lastly submitted that appellant has been declared juvenile in conflict of law at the time of offence by learned session court after due inquiry instituted under the directions of this Court, and even if his complicity in the offence is found to be proved by this Hon’ble Court, the appellant deserves to be dealt with under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be set-aside. 24. Per contra, Learned A.G.A. vehemently supported the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court, whereby the appellant and co-accused have been convicted and sentenced for charge under Section 302/149 IPC and Section 148/147 I.P.C. 25. There is not infirmity, factual or legal error in the impugned judgment passed by trial court. However, learned A.G.A. did not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that he must be dealtwith under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and not under Indian Penal Code, so far as sentence/final order is concerned. 26. On reappraisal of evidence adduced by prosecution, and stand taken by the four accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. we find that prosecution case in respect of present appellant has been duly proved by eyewitness account. PW2 Ramavtar, the informant who has also proved the written report as Ext. Ka-1. On the basis of lodging of FIR, place of occurrence has also been proved by evidence of witnesses of fact. PW3 Brijlal, who is also an injured witness. Site Plan Ext. Ka-5, is duly proved by evidence of Investigating Officer S.I. S.S. Sharma (PW7). The appellant Ram Bahadur has not taken any specific case in defence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., nor produce any defence evidence. PW3 Brijlal, who is also an injured witness. Site Plan Ext. Ka-5, is duly proved by evidence of Investigating Officer S.I. S.S. Sharma (PW7). The appellant Ram Bahadur has not taken any specific case in defence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., nor produce any defence evidence. He only stated that the witnesses have deposed against him due to his father Dodraj. The accused side has failed to prove illicit any material contradiction in evidence of eye witnesses PW1 M.L. Verma, PW2 Ramavtar, PW3 Brijlal, PW4 Ramphal, PW6 Netram. PW1 Dr. M.L. Verma proved injury report of witness Brijlal Varma (PW3). FIR in the case has been lodged within three houses of the incident and on facts of the case and keeping in view the enormity of crime, distance of police station and mode of conveyance no undue delay is found in lodging of FIR and rather it is lodged with utmost promptitude which strengthens its reliability. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that evidence of injury reports of PW2 informant Ramavtar as Ext. Ka-2 and injury report of Brijlal PW-3 as Ext. Ka-1 and had stated that the injuries found on person of injured were likely to be caused on 05.07.1982, at around 07:30 am. That the injuries were found fresh at the time of examination, which was carried out on 05.07.1982, as police medico legal case at around 11:30 am. 28. PW5 Dr. Sita Ram Gupta, is author of postmortem report of deceased Ram Prakash, who proved postmortem report as Ext. Ka-4 by his evidence before the court. He opined in his sworn testimony before the court that injuries found on person of deceased Ram Prakash were sufficient to cause death. As many as 11 ante-mortem injuries were found on person of deceased at the time of examination. Two ounce digested food was found in stomach, on internal examination right parietal, temporal and occipital bones were found to be broken and clotted blood was noticed in subdural space super, subarachnoid space clotted blood was also found and on other injuries. The deceased died on 05.07.1982 at 11:50 am in the hospital. Two ounce digested food was found in stomach, on internal examination right parietal, temporal and occipital bones were found to be broken and clotted blood was noticed in subdural space super, subarachnoid space clotted blood was also found and on other injuries. The deceased died on 05.07.1982 at 11:50 am in the hospital. No material contradiction could be suggested by defence in statements of witnesses of facts before the court from their previous statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, except the fact that PW2 Ramavtar has stated in general manner that seven named accused persons were armed with lathis and kanta. Whereas in evidence before the court he has specified that accused Shree Ram and Ram Bahadur weeded farsa and other accused persons were armed with lathis. Similar statement was given by PW3 Brijlal injured witness and also by PW4 Ramphal. PW6 Netram has also stated that all the seven accused persons were present before the court at the time of incident, assaulted the deceased Ram Prakash by lathis and kanta. Ram Prakash the witness has stated that when accused persons surrounded Ram Prakash who was travelling by a bullock cart and expressed their intent to kill Ram Prakash. He got down from the cart and ran towards the field, but accused persons surrounded him in the field of Preetam and attacked him with lathi and kanta, which caused him fatal injuries. Witnesses Ramavtar and Brijlal when rushed to save Ram Prakash, the accused also assaulted them by lathi. 29. Thus, we find no infirmity in approach of trial court in appreciation of evidence on record and application of law on the facts of the case. The judgment of learned trial court is based on strength of evidence on record and supported by cogent reasons which requires no interference, as far as recording of conviction of the appellant Ram Bahadur is concerned. The judgment of learned trial court is based on strength of evidence on record and supported by cogent reasons which requires no interference, as far as recording of conviction of the appellant Ram Bahadur is concerned. However, this fact is noticeable that during the pendency of present appeal, a plea of juvenality was taken on behalf of appellant Ram Bahadur, and this Court vide order dated 16.02.2022 directed the concerned Sessions Judge to hold an inquiry regarding plea of juvenality of appellant No. 2 Ram Bahadur and in compliance of directions of this Court, the learned Additional Session Judge held an inquiry regarding plea of juvenality raised by appellant No. 2 Ram Bahadur, and his report dated 28.02.2022 stated that at the time of incident appellant Ram Bahadur was juvenile. Therefore, in terms of mandate of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 1996, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the sentence awarded to the appellant for proved charges cannot be sustained. Section 16 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 may be reproduced as under: “16 Order that may not be passed against juvenile: (1) 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: Provided that 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 of 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 uch place of safety and in such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the State Government. (2) 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 under Section 15 of this Act.” 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Katara Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 Live Law (SC) 757 observed in paragraph No. 1 of the judgment that personal liberty of a person is one of the oldest concepts to be purported by national courts. As long ago as in 1215, the English Magna Carta provided that: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned....but.....by law of the land.” In writ petition concerned, which was filed at the instance of a convict accused undergoing life imprisonment for the offences of murder, in which he invoked indulgence of Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking appropriate directions to the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh to verify the exact age of the convict on the date of commission of the offence, as it was the case of the convict that on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 10.09.1982 he was a juvenile aged around 15 years. The Medical Board subjected the applicant to the Xray’s of the skull and sturnum. Upon medical examination of the writ applicant, the Medical Board gave its report dated 10.12.2021 certifying that on 10.09.1982 i.e. the date of the commission of alleged offence, the writ applicant could have been around 15 years of age as on the date of Medical Examination, the convict was around 56 years of age. 31. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that under the 1986 Act, the age of juvenality was up to the 16th year. Section 7(A) of the 2000 Act has inserted by Act 33 of 2006 w.e.f. 22.08.2006 provided as follows: “........7A. 31. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that under the 1986 Act, the age of juvenality was up to the 16th year. Section 7(A) of the 2000 Act has inserted by Act 33 of 2006 w.e.f. 22.08.2006 provided as follows: “........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.” The claim of juvenility can thus be raised before any Court, at any stage, even after final disposal of the case and if the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, it is to 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. Even though the offence in this case may have been committed before the enactment of the Act of 2000, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of juvenility under Section 7A of the Act of 2000, if on inquiry it is found that he was less than 18 years of age on the date of the alleged offence.” 32. Hon’ble Court further observed in above stated judgment as under: “20. Hon’ble Court further observed in above stated judgment as under: “20. On and with effect from 15.01.2016, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the 2015 Act”) came into force which repealed the 2000 Act. While the appeal of the petitioner herein against his conviction and sentence was pending in the High Court, the 2000 Act came into force which repealed the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The 2000 Act inter alia raised the age of juvenility from 16 to 18 years and in terms of Section 20 of the 2000 Act, the determination of juvenility was required to be done in all pending matters in accordance with Section 2(1) of the 2000 Act. 21. The effect of Section 20 of the 2000 Act was considered in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 , and it was stated as under: “31. Section 20 of the Act as quoted above deals with the special provision in respect of pending cases and begins with a non obstante clause. The sentence “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 came into force” has great significance. The proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court referred to in Section 20 of the Act are relatable to proceedings initiated before the 2000 Act came into force and which are pending when the 2000 Act came into force. The term “any court” would include even ordinary criminal courts. If the person was a “juvenile” under the 1986 Act the proceedings would not be pending in criminal courts. They would be pending in criminal courts only if the boy had crossed 16 years or the girl had crossed 18 years. This shows that Section 20 refers to cases where a person had ceased to be a juvenile under the 1986 Act but had not yet crossed the age of 18 years then the pending case shall continue in that court as if the 2000 Act has 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, shall forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile.” 22. In Bijender Singh v. State of Haryana, (2005) 3 SCC 685 , the legal position as regards Section 20 was stated in following words: “8. One of the basic distinctions between the 1986 Act and the 2000 Act relates to the age of males and females. Under the 1986 Act, a juvenile means a male juvenile who has not attained the age of 16 years, and a female juvenile who has not attained the age of 18 years. In the 2000 Act, the distinction between male and female juveniles on the basis of age has not been maintained. The age-limit is 18 years for both males and females. 9. A person above 16 years in terms of the 1986 Act was not a juvenile. In that view of the matter the question whether a person above 16 years becomes “juvenile” within the purview of the 2000 Act must be answered having regard to the object and purport thereof. 10. In terms of the 1986 Act, a person who was not juvenile could be tried in any court. Section 20 of the 2000 Act takes care of such a situation stating that despite the same the trial shall continue in that court as if that Act has not been passed and in the event, he is found to be guilty of commission of an offence, a finding to that effect shall be recorded in the judgment of conviction, if any, but instead of passing any sentence in relation to the juvenile, he would be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board (in short “the Board”) which shall pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if it has been satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed the offence. A legal fiction has, thus, been created in the said provision. A legal fiction as is well known must be given its full effect although it has its limitations. 11....................... 12. Thus, by reason of legal fiction, a person, although not a juvenile, has to be treated to be one by the Board for the purpose of sentencing, which takes care of a situation that the person although not a juvenile in terms of the 1986 Act but still would be treated as such under the 2000 Act for the said limited purpose.” 23. In Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 5 SCC 344 , the determination of juvenility even after conviction was one of the issues and it was stated: “11. It is plain from the language of the Explanation to Section 20 that in all pending cases, which would include not only trials but even subsequent proceedings by way of revision or appeal, etc., the determination of juvenility of a juvenile has to be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be a juvenile on or before 142001, when the Act of 2000 came into force, and the provisions of the Act would apply as if the said provision had been in force for all purposes and for all material times when the alleged offence was committed. 12. Clause (l) of Section 2 of the Act of 2000 provides 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. Section 20 also enables the court to consider and determine the juvenility of a person even after conviction by the regular court and also empowers the court, while maintaining the conviction, to set aside the sentence imposed and forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned for passing sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2000.” 24. Similarly, in Kalu v. State of Haryana, (2012) 8 SCC 34 , this Court summed up as under: “21. Section 20 makes a special provision in respect of pending cases. It states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Juvenile Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which the Juvenile Act comes into force in that area shall be continued in that court as if the Juvenile 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 the Juvenile Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under the Juvenile Act that the juvenile has committed the offence. The Explanation to Section 20 makes it clear that in all pending cases, which would include not only trials but even subsequent proceedings by way of revision or appeal, the determination of juvenility of a juvenile would be in terms of clause (l) of Section 2, even if the juvenile ceased to be a juvenile on or before 1.4.2001, when the Juvenile Act came into force, and the provisions of the Juvenile Act would apply as if the said provision had been in force for all purposes and for all material times when the alleged offence was committed.” 25. It is thus well settled that in terms of Section 20 of the 2000 Act, in all cases where the accused was above 16 years but below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings pending in the Court would continue and be taken to the logical end subject to an exception that upon finding the juvenile to be guilty, the Court would not pass an order of sentence against him but the juvenile would be referred to the Board for appropriate orders under the 2000 Act. 26. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we now proceed to consider the matter further keeping in view the 2000 Act. “.........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 hyper-technical 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. 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. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, we have to consider the nature and scope of the final order which may be passed in respect of surviving appellant Ram Bahadur in terms of Section 16 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. On perusal of Section 15(1)(g) and proviso to Section 16, it is crystal clear that the maximum period of detention in respect of a juvenile is 3 years as provided in Section 15(1) (g). The said section provides that where the Juvenile Justice Board is, an inquiry satisfied that the juvenile has committed an offence, then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the the time being in force, the Juvenile Justice Board may, if it thinks fit, make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to special home for a period of three years. 34. Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides as under: “15. Order that may be passed regarding juvenile: (1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile has committed an offence, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Board may, if it thinks so fit: (a) allow the juvenile to go home after advice or admonition following appropriate inquiry against and counselling to the parent or the guardian and the juvenile. (b) direct the juvenile to participate in group counselling and similar activities. (c) order the juvenile to perform community service. (d) order the parent of the juvenile or the juvenile himself to pay a fine, if he is over fourteen years of age and earns money. (e) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent, guardian or other fit person, on such parent, guardian or other fit person executing a bond, with or without surety, as the Board may require, for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years. (f) direct the juvenile to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any fit institution for the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile for any period not exceeding three years. (g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years: Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case it is expedient so to do, for reasons to be recorded, reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit. (2) The Board shall obtain the social investigation report on juvenile either through a probation officer or a recognized voluntary organisation or otherwise, and shall take into consideration the findings of such report before passing an order. (3) Where an order under clause (d), clause (e) or clause (f) of sub-section (1) is made, the Board may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the juvenile and of the public, it is expedient so to do, in addition make an order that the juvenile i conflict with law shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not exceeding three years as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for he due supervision of the juvenile in conflict with law: Provided that if at any time afterwards it appears to the Board on receiving a report from the probation officer or otherwise, that the juvenile in conflict with law has not been of good behaviour during the period of supervision or that the fit institute on under whose care the juvenile was placed is no longer able or willing to ensure the good behaviour and well-being of the juvenile it may, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, order the juvenile in conflict with law to be sent to a special home. (4) The Board shall while making a supervision order under sub-section (3), explain to the juvenile and the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, under whose care the juvenile has been placed, the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to the juvenile, the parent, guardian or other fit person or fit institution, as the case may be, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer.” 35. Considering the fact that the incident occurred way back in the year 1982, and the appellant who has been declared as juvenile in conflict of law in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by Sessions Court after due inquiry in its report dated 28.09.2022, his present age appears to be around 60 years, he cannot be sent to special home for any period up to maximum 3 years at this juncture. 36. Therefore, on giving due consideration to the nature and gravity of the offence, long pendency of appeal and a duration of 42 years between the offence and disposal of present appeal instituted by appellants, we find it just proper and expedient that the surviving appellant Ram Bahadur be dealtwith under the provisions of Section 15(1)(d) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and he may be directed to pay fine, as he is now an earning person. 37. The judgment and finding of conviction recorded by learned trial court in respect of surviving appellant Ram Bahadur is affirmed, but sentence is set-aside in the light of aforesaid discussion, as he has been found juvenile in conflict of law at the time of the offence which took place way back in the year 1982. On exercising the powers under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, we direct the appellant Ram Bahadur to pay Rs. 50,000/- as fine in lieu of sentence and also as final order in terms of section 15(1)(d) of Act No. 56 of 2000 as stated above, which will be deposited with High Court Mediation Center within two months of uploading of this judgment on the website of High Court. 38. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 39. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned Session Judge, Budaun for necessary action and compliance. 38. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 39. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned Session Judge, Budaun for necessary action and compliance. The lower court record be sent back to court concerned for necessary action immediately.