JUDGMENT

B.K. Misra, J

1. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.5.2003 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in S.T. No.109/34 of 2002, the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. Gourang Ch. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Mohapatra while challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the question of juvenility which was raised before him as a result of which there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the present appellant, who was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, has been prejudiced and has suffered incarceration for a decade, Our attention was drawn to the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Para 9 of the impugned judgment wherein the Trial Court held the appellant a major at the time of commission of the alleged crime by disbelieving the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate.

3. From the impugned judgment we find that the School Leaving Certificate was produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which revealed that the present appellant was born on 7.6.1985 and therefore he was a minor at the time of alleged commission of offence on 8.2.2002. Learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the entry with regard to the date of birth of the 'appellant recorded in the School Leaving Certificate.

4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State contended that in the charge sheet the year of birth of the appellant has been reflected as 1983 by the Investigating Officer and the appellant did not raise the question of juvenility when he was first produced before the learned S.D.J.M. Angul or at any stage till argument in the case was heard and no evidence has also been led to substantiate the fact that the entries made in the School Leaving Certificate were correct and genuine and therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly disbelieved the plea of the juvenility raised by the appellant before it.

5. We may mention here that the present appellant faced trial in the Court below for having committed murder of the deceased Suratha Pradhan with an axe when the deceased alongwith Binod Sahu and Balakrishna Pradhan had gone to guard the forest. On the basis of the FIR lodged by P.W. 4 Subash Ch. Pradhan at Jarapada Police Station investigation was taken up and on its completion charge sheet was placed against the present appellant to stand his trial.

6. The plea of the appellant was that of a complete denial of the alleged occurrence.

7. To establish its case the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses in all whereas the appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

8. After considering the entire evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the case of the prosecution and in view of the evidence on record held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

9. Since much stress has been laid on the question of juvenility we deem it fit and proper to deal with that matter first. The position of law is very clear and there can be no doubt about the fact that the claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage even after final disposal of the case and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000) and the Rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. This provision has been inserted by way of an amendment incorporated to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 by adding Section 7-A to the Act.

10. In the instant case, the plea of juvenility was raised b