R.L.Anand, J.

1. The impugned judgments have been read with the assistance rendered by the counsel of the parties. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned judgments so far as the conviction part is concerned.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the alternative urged that the petitioner may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence as he was a minor on the date of the commission of offence and in this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon certificate Ex. D.2 and the statement of Nihal Singh DW.2 which were relied upon in the trial court. In this regard I would like to reproduce the discussion of the learned trial Court which is as follows :-

"On the other hand, the learned GFI urged that the accused was not less than 18 years of age at the time of taking of sample. He drew my attention towards charge framed against the accused dated 15.4.1983 in which the accused stated his age 19 years. He urged that from this angle, the accused cannot be said less than 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence. He also urged that the age of the accused is to be considered on the date of his conviction and not on the date of t