JUDGMENT

Lalit Batra, J. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by petitione seeking order for inquiry to determine his age as contemplated under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act, 2000'), for declaring him 'juvenile in conflict with the law', in case FIR No.277 dated 30.10.1995 under Sections 148, 302, 307, 323 and 364 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Punhana, District Mewat (Nuh).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended that in case FIR No.277 dated 30.10.1995, as detailed above, petitioner was held guilty, convicted and sentenced for the commission of aforesaid offences, vide judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2012 and order on quantum of sentence dated 10.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh. He further contended that appeal (CRA-D-443-DB-2013) preferred by petitioner against his conviction and sentence, was dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated 01.10.2013. He further contended that no appeal was preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated 01.10.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that incident had occurred during the intervening night of 30/31.10.1995, whereas date of birth of petitioner is 06.07.1979, therefore, on the date of commission of offence, he was aged 16 years, 03 months and 25 days. He further contended that to show the date of birth (06.07.1979) of petitioner, 'School Leaving Certificate' (Annexure P-1) issued on 19.05.1989, Certificate dated 11.03.2016 (Annexure P-2) issued by Gram Panchayat, Bisambera and photocopy of School Register (Annexure P-3) have been placed on record. He further urged that apart from above, a Certificate dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure P-4) has been issued to the petitioner by National Institute of Open Schooling under Directorate of Adult Education, wherein his age has been recorded 35 years'.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that on 30/31.10.1995 (date of incident) Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act, 1986'), was in force and in terms of said Act, the age of juvenility in respect of a boy was upto the sixteenth year, whereas age of juvenility in respect of a girl was upto the eighteenth year. He further urged that the petitioner aged 16 years, 03 months and 25 days was not a juvenile in terms of Act, 1986. He further contended that Act, 2000, came into force on 01.04.2001, and in terms of said Act, age of juvenility was raised upto 18 years. He further contended that petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2011 and thereafter his trial commenced and culminated in his conviction and sentence, vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2012 and 10.09.2012 respectively. He further contended that as proceedings qua the petitioner were pending before Trial Court after 01.04.2001, thus, by virtue of provisions of Section 20 of Act, 2000, by reason of legal fiction, a person although not a juvenile, has to be treated to be one (juvenile) for the purpose of sentencing, which takes care of a situation that the person although not a juvenile in terms of Act, 1986, but still would be treated as such under the Act, 2000.

Learned counsel further contended that petitioner was not having any knowledge that plea of juvenility can be raised nor he was so advised by anyone at any point of time, therefore, the said fact was not disclosed by the petitioner to his counsel either before the Trial Court or before this Court during appeal. He further urged that plea of juvenility could not be raised by the petitioner before the Court due to ignorance of law. He further contended that claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court, at any stage, even after final disposal of the case and to this effect reliance has been placed upon rulings Ashok vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.643 of 2020 decided on 29.11.2021 and Vinod Katara vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ Petition