The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a finding regarding the age of the accused has become conclusive and final, it cannot be challenged at a later stage. The court emphasized the principle that the determination of juvenility is to be considered in accordance with the date of the occurrence and not the date of arrest or production before the authorities.

Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J -Sita Ram son of Govind Meena, one of the accused appellant in the aforesaid appeal has filed this miscellaneous application (Inward No. 4297/2011) under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000 with the prayer that he may be declared a juvenile on the date of occurrence. The procedure prescribed under the Act of 2000 and the Rules of 2007 be followed and he may be released from jail.

2. It has been averred in the application that the accused applicant was a minor on the date when the incident took place on 28.6.2004. Further. it is stated that the date of birth of the accused is 3-7-1986 and the same was so mentioned in the admission form submitted to Government Upper Primary School. Jagatpura. Block Niwai, district Tonk (Annexure-1). It is also stated that the date of birth of the accused applicant had been mentioned at serial No. 91 in the admission register of Government Upper Primary School. Jagatpura. Block Niwai as 3.7.1986. The accused applicant is said to have been admitted in the said school on 20.7.1990 (Annexure-2). It is also averred in the application that the certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan for the Secondary School Examination. 2002, also mentions 3.7.1986 as the date of birth of the applicant (Annexure-3). Therefore, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused applicant is a juvenile as he was below 18 years of age. on the day of occurrence.

3. The accused applicant has filed the aforesaid appeal along with the other accused persons. challenging the judgment dated 30.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk in Sessions Case No. 58/2004 whereby he has convicted the accused appellants for the offence. inter alia under Sections 302 and 302/149. IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The incident in this case had taken place on 28.6.2004 at about 8.00 a.m. and a report came to be lodged on the Pracha Bayan of Shaitan son of Ramni was Meena recorded by Budha Lal, Sub Inspector on 28.6.2004. On the said report. a first information report (No. 214/2004) came to be registered at Police Station Niwai, district Tonk for the offences. inter alia. under Section 302, IPC. It is to be noted that in the present case, three persons namely, Prahlad, Kailash and Mool Chand had died. During the course of investigation, the applicant Sita Ram came to be arrested on 4.7.2004 and his age had been mentioned as 20 years. Similarly in the information memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which was prepared on 5.7.2004, the age of the applicant is mentioned as 19 years and in the statement of the accused Sita Ram recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 13-7-2005, the age had been mentioned as 19 years and Takhmina 23 years.

4. On 28-9-2004. the accused applicant had moved an application before the learned trial Court with the prayer that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age at the time of incident and therefore order of his discharge may be passed immediately. Along with the said application, the applicant had filed a transfer certificate dated 4-7-1995 of the school at Jagatpura, P. S. Niwai. In the said certificate, the date of birth of Sita Ram Meena son of Govind Ram Meena was mentioned as 3-7-1986 and he was admitted in Class 1st on 20-7-1986. The learned trial Court considered the application in detail and dismissed the same, vide his order dated 7.10.2004, holding that apart from the fact that the certificate filed in support of the application was a photostat copy, the same is not reliable for the reason that the date of birth is mentioned as 3.7.1986 and the date of admission is 20-7-1986, meaning thereby that the accused had taken admission in the school only after 13 days of his birth. Further, he has mentioned that the accused had already attained the age of 18 years on 3-7-2004 whereas he was arres