JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State.

2. By the judgment and order dated 19-05-2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup at Rangia in connection with Sessions Case No. 271/2010, the appellant Md. Mainul Haque Ahmed was convicted under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of his sister-in-law viz. Fatema Bibi and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The judgment and order dated 19-05-2015 has been assailed by filing the instant appeal.

3. It appears from the record that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant had, for the first time, taken the plea of juvenility and had filed I.A. (Crl.) No. 782/2017 arising out of Crl. Appeal No. 200/2015 making a prayer before this Court to declare him as “juvenile” within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 on the ground that on the date of the occurrence, i.e. on 13-04-1993, the appellant was aged below 14 years and therefore, was a “juvenile.” The appellant had claimed that his date of birth was 18-12-1979. Taking note of the aforesaid plea raised by the appellant, this Court had passed order dated 04-12-2017 in I.A. (Crl.) No. 782/2017 directing the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup at Rangia to conduct an enquiry regarding the plea of juvenility raised by the appellant in terms of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and thereafter, submit a report. Accordingly, the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge had conducted an enquiry and submitted report dated 27-03-2018. As per the enquiry report dated 27-03-2018, the claim of the appellant that he was a “juvenile” on the date of occurrence was found to be correct.

4. Taking note of the enquiry report dated 27-03-2018, this Court had passed the order dated 24-04-2018 in I.A. (Crl.) No. 782/2017 holding that as on the date of occurrence, the appellant was a “juvenile” within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

5. There is no wrangle at the bar that the finding recorded in the order dated 27-03-2018 as regards juvenility of the appellant, has in the meantime, attained finality in the eye of law. What, therefore, logically follows is that if the appellant was a “juvenile” on the date of occurrence, the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup evidently did not have the jurisdiction under the law to try him for the charge framed under Section 302 IPC in connection with Rangia P.S. Case No. 116/1993.

6. In the case of Dharambir vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2010) 5 SCC 344 similar question on juvenility of the appellant/accused had arisen after the trial was concluded. The appellant therein was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay fine. When the matter went up to the Supreme Court, the plea of juvenility was raised. Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 the appellant was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence but the court found that on the date of occurrence, the appellant had not completed 18 years and therefore, was a juvenile within the meaning of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. By taking note of the provision of the Act of 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the Supreme Court had made the following observation in paragraph 15:

“15. It is, thus, manifest from a conjoint reading of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7-A, 20 and 49 of the Act of 2000, read with Rules 12 and 98 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 that all persons who were below the age of eighteen years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to 1-4-2001 would be treated as juvenile even if the claim of juvenility is r