The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefit of the amended law on juvenility has to be accorded if the accused was a juvenile at the time of the offence, regardless of the stage of the trial or the finality of the judgment.

1. The appellant was arrested on 10.06.1998 (vide Ex.PW-7/A) during the course of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.194/1998 registered by Police Station Delhi Cantt., for offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR (Ex.PW-5/A) had been registered on the basis of complaint (Ex.PW-3/A) made by his sister Meenakshi (PW-3) on which the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station had made endorsement (Ex.PW-12/A). In the FIR, the first informant (PW-3) had reported that her daughter, then aged six years, had gone missing, she raising suspicion about complicity in the kidnapping on part of her brother, the appellant, on account of his past conduct. During the course of investigation, the girl child was recovered and it was found that she had been stabbed. The evidence gathered during investigation showed the complicity of the appellant in the kidnapping of the said child, the knife injuries inflicted on her being serious and of such nature as were likely to result in her death, the knife used in the process statedly having been recovered at the instance of the appellant.

2. On conclusion of investigation, report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was presented on which cognizance was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Eventually, the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as sessions case No.191/2000.

3. The appellant was put on trial on the charge for offences punishable under Sections 364/307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution led evidence by examining Dr. Rajender Kumar (PW-1), Senior Scientific Officer of FSL; ASI Chet Ram (PW-2), the fingerprint expert; Meenakshi (PW-3), the first informant; Head Constable Arjun Pandit (PW-4), Moharrar malkhana; Head Constable Satbir (PW-5), duty officer; Constable Jaipal (PW-6), who had taken the exhibits to FSL; Head Constable Rajender Kumar (PW-7), who had assisted Inspector S.P. Gupta in the investigation; Head Constable Ram Phool (PW-8), who had got the FIR registered; Lalit Tiwari (PW-9), who joined and assisted in the investigation; Major (Dr.) Harkeerat Singh (PW-10), who proved the report, (Ex.PW-10/A) of medical examination in respect of victim; ASI Hari Shanker (PW-11), the crime team photographer; and Inspector S.P.Gupta (PW-12), SHO of the Police Station who had conducted the investigation.

4. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied his involvement or complicity in the crimes disputing evidence as incorrect, though declining to lead any evidence in defence.

5. The Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 29.08.2002 found the appellant guilty and convicted him on the charge for the offences under Sections 364 and 307 IPC, he proceeding to award punishment in form of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for two years, on each count, by order dated 31.08.2002.

6. The present appeal was filed to assail the above mentioned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. The sentence was suspended and the appellant released on bail, pending hearing on the appeal, initially by order dated 14.10.2004, as confirmed by order dated 17.01.2005.

7. At the hearing, it has been submitted by the appellant, who is present in person with his father and sister Meenakshi (PW-3) that he was a juvenile, i.e., less than 17 years old at the time of commission of the offence, and, therefore, benefit of amended law relating to Juvenile Justice, be accorded to him. He has submitted through counsel that he admits his guilt and complicity in the aforementioned crimes, not disputing the evidence that was adduced on the basis of which the conclusions have been recorded. He places reliance on the view taken by the Supreme Court in Abdul Razzaq vs. State of U.P., (2015) 15 SCC 637.

8. The trial court record reveals that soon after the arrest, during the period of investigation, it had been