None appears for the accused/appellant on call. The learned Amicus Curiae is not present. Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appears for the State of Assam.

2. In view of the order to be passed, this Court proposes to proceed in the absence of the learned Amicus Curiae and without hearing her.

3. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.PC against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2005, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon convicting the accused/appellant, Sri Haren Barman in Sessions Case No. 23(B)/2004, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs, 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) month under Section 326 of the IPC. The accused/appellant was also convicted and sentenced to further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years and with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) month under Section 307 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court ordered to run the sentences concurrently.

4. I have perused the memorandum of appeal. Although in the memorandum of appeal, no plea has been taken as regard the juvenility of the accused/appellant, yet the School certificate of the accused/appellant issued by the Balamguri Provincialised High School on 16.05.2000, which is available in the record, shows that the date of birth of the accused/appellant is 08.10.1985. Record shows that the date of occurrence in the instant case is 06.05.2000. That being so, the accused/appellant, prima facie, subject to final enquiry, appears to be below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. I have perused the impugned judgment. There is no instance in the judgment impugned in this appeal to show that the plea of juvenility was taken by the accused/appellant before the learned Trial Court. As stated above, the plea of juvenility has even not been taken in this appeal. But, the fact remains that the School certificate, available in the record, as aforesaid, makes it, prima facie, appear that the accused/appellant was a juvenile at the relevant time of the occurrence. However, this prima facie view is subject to an enquiry to be made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended from time to time).

5. It is important to note here that in the original GR Case No. 82/2000, out of which the Session Case No. 23(B)/2004 arose, vide order dated 17.05.2000, the accused/appellant was held to be below 16 years of age on the basis of the School certificate and horoscope. The bail was also granted on the ground of his being a minor.

6. It is apparent from the order dated 17.05.2000 in GR Case No. 82/2000, the learned Magistrate found the accused/appellant to be a juvenile, and therefore, granted bail. Even if the plea of juvenility as aforesaid, has not been taken either in the appeal or before the Trial court by the accused/appellant yet, in the considered view of this Court, the Court cannot ignore the School certificate available in the record on the basis of which bail was granted as well as his age on the date of recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC so as to assess the juvenility or otherwise of the accused/appellant. That being so, this Court has taken notice of the fact and has given the direction as indicated at paragraph 4 of this judgment and order.

7. In the instant case, it appears that the learned Trial Court completely over-looked the age of the accused/appellant at the time of commission of the offence. While recording the statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC, the learned Trial court recorded his age as 23 years on 27.10.2005. The occurrence took place evidently on 06.05.2000. Therefore, on the date of occurrence, the accused/appellant was below 18 years of age, and prima facie, a juvenile. So, the Trial Court ought to have tak