The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and the Rules in determining the age of the appellant at the time of the offence, and the court's decision to extend the benefit of juvenility based on the bone ossification test report.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.04.2004, passed by the learned ASJ in SC No.95/2003, arising out of FIR No.90/2000 registered at PS Geeta Colony under Sections 302/324/120B/34 IPC. The appellant herein was arrayed in the case as accused No.1. Under the impugned judgment, the appellant and two co-accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/324/34 IPC. Vide order dated 08.04.2004, on the point of sentence, each of the three co-accused were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and were directed to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused were sentenced to undergo SI for 2 years each. They were also sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years each for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The present appeal directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence was admitted for regular hearing on 07.12.2004. In the year 2009, the appellant moved an application (Crl. M.C. 9483/2009) praying inter alia for quashing the order of sentence and for referring his case to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal, as a case under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short, J. J. Act, 2000). Notice was issued on the said application on 07.08.2009 and vide order dated 27.01.2010, it was directed that the issue raised in the application would be taken up at the time of hearing the appeal.

3. Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant states that in the meantime, the appellant had been released on bail vide order dated 07.07.2009. As per the Nominal Roll on record, as on 12.06.2009, the appellant had undergone the sentence for a period of 8 years 7 months and 9 days and earned remission for a period of 1 year 7 months and 10 days.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant states on instructions that the appellant does not propose to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and wishes to confine the relief in the appeal to quashing of the order on the point of sentence by extending him the benefit of the J.J. Act on the ground that he was a minor at the time of commission of offence. To substantiate the said submission, learned counsel places reliance on the bone ossification test conducted on the appellant at the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital, New Delhi. A copy of the Ossification Test Report dated 20.04.2001 (Ex.PW-1/A) has been enclosed with the application. As per the said report, the appellant’s age was less than 21 years and more than 17 years. Learned counsel for the appellant points out from the record that the date of the crime was 19.10.2000 and the impugned judgment was rendered by the trial court after three years and five months on 06.04.2004, wherein it has been erroneously observed that on the date of the offence, the J.J. Act, 2000 had not come into force. He states that the statue had been notified on 01.04.2001 and it was very much in force on the date of the judgment.

5. On the application of the said enactment to pending cases, learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on Section 20 of the J. J. Act, 2000 that deals with the special provisions in respect of pending cases to urge that the said provision would apply in all pending cases or criminal proceedings regarding a Juvenile in conflict with law and for the determination of the juvenility of such a juvenile, he refers to the explanation appended to Section 20 that states the same had to be evaluated in terms of clause (l) of Section 2 of the Act that defines a ‘juvenile in conflict with law’, even if the said juvenile ceases to be so, on or before the commencement of the Act. Section 7 A of the J. J. Act, 2000 has also been quoted by learned counsel. The said provision prescribes the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court.

6. For purpose of ready reference, it