A single bench cannot override a division bench's decision under Art.226 when juvenility claims are raised post-conviction.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not seek quashing of the sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Criminal appeal No. 2461 of 1997, however, in view of the provisions of S.7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (for short "the Act, 2000") set aside the sentence imposed by the learned Division Bench upon the petitioner.

2. The facts, in brief, as protected by the petitioner are that four accused persons namely Sapan, Somen Rai, Suben and Sushen, i.e. the present petitioner, were tried in Sessions Trial No. 961/1992 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, for the offences punishable under S.302 and S.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The other co - accused persons were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur by order dated 14-10-1996 and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under S.302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under S.307/34 of the IPC. However, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 14-10-1996, the co - accused persons filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1981/1996 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and the State Government also filed an appeal against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner, being Criminal Appeal No. 2461/1997. Both these appeals were heard together and finally decided on 11-2-2013. The learned Division Bench, having regard to the fact that at the time of the commission of the offence, the accused persons were in their young age, the conviction under S.302/34 of the IPC was set aside and the co - accused persons along with the petitioner were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under S.304 (Part - II) and five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under S.307 of the IPC. A compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was also awarded to the injured persons in equal proportion. Thus, the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the petitioner, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 2461/1997, was allowed partly.

3. After passing of the order by the learned Division Bench of this Court, it appears that the petitioner made an application before the Chairman (Chief Magistrate) Juvenile Justice Board, Dantewada, on 22-5-2013. The Juvenile Justice Board, by order dated 22-6-2013 (Annexure P / 3) held that the petitioner was 16 years 5 months and 24 days old at the time of incident i.e. on 1-9-1991 and as such, he was juvenile. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs :
10.1 Quash / set aside the sentence of imprisonment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2461 of 1997 in Crime No. 109/1991 registered at P.S. Kirandul Distict Dantewada.
10.2. Grant all benefits available to the petitioner as 'juvenile in conflict with law' available to him under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

4. On a query as to whether the petitioner has raised the question of juvenility either before the trial Court or before the appellate Court, learned counsel fairly submits that this question was never raised before any forum. However, at the time of argument before this Court, the petitioner made a submission that in view of the provisions of S.7A of the Act, 2000 the order of sentence passed by the learned Division Bench, may be set aside.

5. The question of law raised herein is as to whether the judgment and order of conviction passed