K. Hema, J.

1. Can a Court reject the claim of juvenility raised by accused on the ground that it was raised only at the fag end of the trial and hence, not bona fide? Does burden of proving juvenility lie on the accused? What is the procedure to be adopted, if accused makes a claim during trial before a Court that he was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence? These are the main questions arising for consideration in this appeal.

2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Court for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine, if realised, was ordered to be given to the victim's widow under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). The said conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.

3. According to prosecution, on 10.04.2003 at about 7.15 p.m., accused committed murder of deceased Manja by beating him with a wooden log, with intention to cause his death. The incident happened in a Colony. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but, he died on the same night, as a result of the severity of the injuries sustained.

4. The accused took up a plea at the stage of defence evidence, that he was a juvenile at the time of occurrence. He examined DW1, his mother to prove the claim. She deposed that accused was aged only 14 years, at the time of occurrence. The trial court on consideration of the evidence held as follows:

"Age was questioned by the accused and he has not let in evidence to establish the facts asserted by him. Since it is a fact which wants the court really on the burden of proof on him to establish that fact. Viewing the matters in such perspective, I find no merit in the contention of the accused that he was minor at the time of commission of offence".

5. The trial court, after finding that there is no merit in the contention raised by accused on juvenility, proceeded to consider evidence adduced in the case and held that accused is guilty and convicted him for offence under Section 302 IPC. The main contention raised in this appeal is that conviction and sentence passed against appellant are illegal since those are in violation of the provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Juvenile Justice Act', for short).

6. Heard Sri.Deepu Thankan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Gikku Jacob, learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. The points for consideration in this appeal are:

i) Whether the trial court committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing appellant for the alleged offence, without determining claim of juvenility, in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules thereunder?

ii) Whether the conviction and sentence passed against appellant are unsustainable ?

7. Admittedly, appellant is an 'adivasi' (tribal) and he made a claim before Sessions Court that he was aged only 14 years, on the date of occurrence. To prove the claim, his mother was examined as DW1. She deposed that accused was aged only 14 years on the date of occurrence. She also deposed that the deceased sustained injury when he fell down, after getting drunk and accused is innocent.

8. Learned counsel for appellant argued that in the light of the plea of juvenility raised by accused, trial court ought to have determined the age of accused as on the date of occurrence and forwarded accused to the Juvenile Justice Board ('the Board', for short), under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act. The trial court committed an illegality in not following the procedure laid down in the Juvenile Justice Act and convicting appellant, it is argued.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that appellant raised the plea of juvenility only at a highly belated stage (defence evidence) and hence, it is not bona fide. Even at the