Appellants, Pappu Singh and Shankar Singh have faced Sessions Trial bearing no. 301/96/262/14 before the court of Additional Sessions Judge-3rd, Aurangabad who, vide judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2016 found them guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the IPC, 27 of the Arms Act and for that, they independently, have been directed to undergo RI for 10 years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof, to undergo SI for 2 months additionally, RI for 3 years, to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo SI for 1 month additionally, under both heads respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently.

2. The instant appeal is yet to be listed under the heading ‘for hearing’. During midst thereof, Interlocutory Application No. 343/2017 has been filed on behalf of appellant, Pappu Singh to suspend/stay the conviction recorded by the judgment impugned. However, the same has never been pressed as subsequently, thereof, Interlocutory Application No. 439/2017 has been filed on his behalf praying therein to declare him juvenile and so, his case be split up in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, remitting the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board to pass appropriate order in context of appellant.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State.

4. In order to substantiate such plea, it has been submitted on behalf of appellant that his real name happens to be Vivek Kumar and in the name of Vivek Kumar, he appeared in Bihar School Examination Board (Matric Examination) held in the year 1987 and was declared passed in 2nd Division. His date of birth has been shown therein as 13th April 1973. Date of occurrence is of 04.08.1990 and so he was of 17 years 3 months and 21 days on the alleged date of occurrence and so, he happens to be a juvenile in the eye of law. A certificate issued by the Block Development Officer-cum-Returning Officer has been annexed to disclose that appellant has got alias name as Vivek Kumar @ Pappu Singh and so submitted that the appellant be declared juvenile.

5. Learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that the certificate granted by the Block Development Officer-cum-Returning Officer, Raniganj is not legally entertainable as the same has been procured after filing of the appeal. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the aforesaid eventuality is found duly ignored at the end of appellant himself and for that, learned APP submitted that neither in the bail petition filed at an initial stage nor in Vakalatnama nay in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC and lastly in the memorandum of appeal, he has shown his alias name as Pappu Singh @ Vivek Kumar and so, prima facie, appellant could not be considered to be juvenile on the basis of the matriculation certificate which does not connect the appellant. That being so, prayer is fit to be rejected.

6. Initially under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 1986 the age of delinquent in contravention of law has been properly identified with regard to a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years and a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years according to Section 2 (H) of the said Act.

7. Subsequently thereof, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 replaced 1986 Act whereunder Section 2 (L) replaced the earlier criterion divulging a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed 18 years of age as on the date of commission of such offence. In due course of time, an amendment has been introduced apart from others, by way of Section-7A of the Act whereunder, the plea of juvenility has been allowed to be availed by the delinquent “at any stage even after finalization of the proceeding”.

8. The aforesaid privilege has been retained under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 under Section 9(2) proviso.

9. That being so, so far stage i