IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of case.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 681-DBA of 2000 and Criminal Revision No. 1242 of 2000 whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by respondent No. 1 (State) herein and the criminal revision filed by respondent No. 2 (Complainant) herein by setting aside the judgment dated 06.06.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1998 and convicted both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each.

2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals.

3. Appellant No.1-Ashok Kumar Mehra is the father of appellant No. 2-Kushwant@Sukhwant Kumar Mehra. Both the appellants, i.e., father and son were prosecuted for commission of the offence of committing murder of one Inderjit Dhiman. The Sessions Judge by judgment/order dated 06.06.2000 passed in Sessions Case No. 10/1998 acquitted both the appellants.

4. The State and the Complainant both felt aggrieved and filed criminal appeal and criminal revision in the High Court. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal as well as the criminal revision and while reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, convicted both the appellants and awarded them life sentence, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by both the accused persons, i.e., father and son.

5. Heard Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ankit Swarup & Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel for the appellants, at the outset, stated that so far as the appellant No.1-Ashok Kumar Mehra, i.e., father is concerned, he has expired during the pendency of these appeals. Learned counsel then brought to our notice that so far as appellant No.2-Kushwant @ Sukhwant Kumar Mehra, i.e., son is concerned, he was juvenile on the date of commission of the offence.

7. In our opinion, so far as appeal filed by appellant No.1-Ashok Kumar Mehra, i.e., father is concerned, the same stands abated on account of his death. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by appellant No. 1 is accordingly dismissed as abated.

8. Now so far as the appeal filed by appellant No. 2 - Sukhwant Kumar, i.e., son is concerned, the same, in our view, deserves to be allowed in thelight of law laid down by this Court in a recent decision of this Court in Raju vs. The State of Haryana, 2019(4) SCALE 398 wherein a similar question was involved. This is what was held by this Court (Three Judge Bench) in Paras 9, 10, and 25 as under:

"9. It is by now well-settled, as was held in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211, that in light of Sections 2(k), 2(I), 7A read with Section 20 of the 2000 Act as amended in 2006, a juvenile who had not completed eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the 2000 Act (also see Mohan Mali v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 6 SCC 669; Daya Nand v. State of Haryana, (2011) 2 SCC 224; Dharambir v. State (NCT) of Delhi(supra); Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 193). It is equally well-settled that the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage before any Court by an accused, including this Court, even after the final disposal of a case, in terms of Section 7A of the 2000 Act (see Dharambir v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (supra), Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 SCC 489; Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh v. State of UP, (supra); Abdul Razzaq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 637).

10. In light of t